From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 00:09:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:09:32 +1100 (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 AAA10214 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:09:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id wa586192 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:05:27 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-221-0.tmns.net.au ([139.134.221.0]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Equatorial-MailRouter V2.5 9/82144); 31 Oct 1999 23:05:27 Message-ID: <018701bf2440$3583cc00$00dd868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:07:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Derrick Heng wrote: >2) Assuming that Pass is a demonstrably suggested LA to 3D, what >adjusted score would you assign ? Derrick's other two questions have been answered by people more qualified than me; I think Question (2) deserves more than a vague answer. So that you don't have to read boring analysis, I've written *** before the key points. I think *2H -2* is appropriate for EW and I favour *2H -2* for NS, marginally ahead of *2H -3*. Most likely is CJ lead and a trump switch. The play diverges now depending on whether North inserts an honour and whether East ducks HK. One possibility at this level of bridge is: C lead, trump switch ducked to HA, D to A, C ruff, S to A, SQ exit, HQ to K, S ruff, CK cashed, C ruffed and overruffed, D to K. Down two. To make seven tricks, declarer has to make a deduction he is not allowed to make, in order to hook the diamond. There are of course many other possible sequences of play. Had declarer played diamonds instead of opening up the spade suit, 2H -3 is certain when H10 is inserted at Trick 6. I'm not sure if this is enough to rule 2H down three for NS. ***Would, and should, TDs be expected to notice that declarer may get locked in dummy as in some of the above analysis? Ton Kooijman said: "analyzing is not easy. One off seems reasonable." Marv French said: "my guess is +50.....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." ***So a group of TDs is still a good way to analyse the play of a hand in this age of instant communications by email? Are TDs the most expert analysts? If so, they should be playing in, and possibly winning, World Championships. ***Yet TDs are expected to do the analysis, or else the matter is meant to reach an AC. This seems to be a waste of resources. ***In these days of instant communication by email, wouldn't it be more sensible for a panel of expert analysts to be available by email to assist TDs in their rulings? The TDs wouldn't have to spend lots of time analysing bridge play, which is not part of their training. Less hands would go to ACs. And it would stop the particular TD who sometimes approaches one of my teammates for advice between hands. Admittedly the panellists would need to be briefed on the meaning of "most favourable result that was likely" and "most unfavourable result that was at all probable". Note that in practice the TD's email to the panel would probably get only a few responses in time, but those responses should be enough to provide useful guidance. I think this would be an improvement to bridge. And at worst (no responses in time), the TD is no worse off. I could try to gather together a panel, on request. Eric Kokish would be the first person I'd ask. To quote David Burn in another recent thread "Anything would be better than the current situation, in which ......swings depend on no more than which particular judge hears the case." Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 00:11:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:11:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from helium.singnet.com.sg (helium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.101.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10248 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:11:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (as000823.singnet.com.sg [165.21.173.213]) by helium.singnet.com.sg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA18320 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:11:20 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991031210023.007a6b60@pop.singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:00:23 +0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: derrick 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 Dear all Just some clarification and additonal info. Repeated for convenience: 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. Additonal info: It was a round-robin format, with the top 2 of 7 teams qualifying for play-offs against teams from 2 other sections. The convention policy in force was WBF level 3. so I believe 2D (showing both majors) is not illegal. It is unclear what 3D would have been by NS's agreements, but I felt N is probbably entitled to guess that partner has forgotten. The result from the other table was 2D + 2 NS +130 as well I was East. The NS team eventually finished 3rd and our team 4th in the section. Not counting this board, we were 10 imps down in the 16 board match. The director ruled the contract back to 2H, making 2. We appealed, citing L12C2 "most favorable likely result" for down 1 or perhaps even down 2 (if declarer loses control of the hand), but that was when director gave his interpretation regarding "normal play" and the play in 2H being subsequent to the infraction. The appeals committee did not take any direct testimony from the players and upheld the director's ruling and the assigned adjusted score of NS +110. The putative line of play given by the director included NS ruffing a club, finessing the DQ (although in the actual play in 3D declarer guessed to finess wrongly), discarding a club while W ruffs, and leading towards the SK. He gave the defence 2 club tricks (or 1 club and 1 ruff), 2 trumps and SA. We felt that EW could under some situations come to a spade ruff and 3 club tricks in addition to SA and 2 trumps, although perhaps the likeliest result was down 1. Any comments on the analysis of the play in 2H ? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 00:39:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10071 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 XAA10051 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 NAA04858 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:08:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <381C0386.2CF5F7BF@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:53:26 +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: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19991029085537.00691620@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > 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. > Forgive me, I do not know the ACBL regulations. In Belgium, many non-alerted calls are attributed a standard meaning. A double, for example, is for take-out when over a call below the Game level at a moment partner has said nothing but "pass". otherwise it is for penalties. Any other meaning must be alerted. But whether or not the "standard" meaning is written down, or just "common knowledge", the non-alert MUST mean that the call has the relevant standard meaning, or any alerting is simply impossible. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 00:43:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:09:04 +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 XAA10050 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:08:49 +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 NAA04830 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:08:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <381C024B.87084EDE@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:48:11 +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: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> <381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be> <000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > 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. > But listen Hirsh. We are discussing the merits of the answer "no agreement". I am saying that it is, at the very least, an incomplete answer. I don't believe it is true, barring a partner from Inner Mongolia. I would expect the pair, when asked, to explain a little more, even provide a guess. That guess would be the basis of the explanation, and if it turns out to be wrong, I would rule misinformation, although I know that others perhaps would not. Fair, that's what the discussion is all about. Now you confound the issue triplefold. You allow a player to omit an alert, and accept that this is equivalent to "We have no agreement, but if pressed, I will explain it as take-out". When the non-alert, from someone who know his system, is equivalent (by the ACBL regulation) to "penalty". And you maintain there is no MI ? Come on. A non-alert, just like an alert, IS an explanation. You can expect a player to ask about the meaning of an alert, since all it means is "not standard". But you cannot expect a player to ask about the meaning of a non-alert. That meaning should be "standard" or we have no need whatsoever of the alert procedure. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 01:33:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:33:28 +1100 (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 BAA10479 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:33:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id xa713827 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:25:33 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-220-41.tmns.net.au ([139.134.220.41]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Delicious-MailRouter V2.5 13/88598); 01 Nov 1999 00:25:32 Message-ID: <01a201bf244b$5e46ab20$00dd868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:26:10 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Anne Jones wrote: >Why do you ......ignore the fact that the >pass of 3D by North is as much an abuse of UI. (Failure to alert 2H)? >.......in EBUland this is the ruling I would expect. The event is clearly stated as being in Malaysia. My experience at a few Far East Championships is that nobody alerts the response to a transfer. I would confidently expect the Alerting Regulations to confirm that 2H was not alertable, but 2D was alertable. BTW, alerting regulations in Australia and some nearby countries are not based on *natural calls not being alerted* nor on an ACBL-style list. Anne continued: >As I understand it, the EBU line is that this is an illegal system at all >except level 4,..... If you mean that 2D for the majors is an illegal system, I'm sure that would not be the case in this part of the world. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 01:49:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10072 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 XAA10053 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:08:51 +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 NAA04915 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:08:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <381C2AB8.AB65DA71@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:40:40 +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: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199910301731.NAA19576@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > 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! I find this an eminently well formulated analysis and compromise. The leading question and the pro question are illegal. The Kaplan question, if well formulated and with the intent to help opponents avoid giving MI, can be considered legal. I have another example of a "Kaplan" question. When I am playing with an absolute beginner, I might realise that the opponents are not telling all, and that they are relying on the L40B sentence "reasonably be expected to understand". Am I allowed to point out to opponents that my partner would not be expected to understand ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 02:46:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:44:11 +1100 (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 BAA10521 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:44:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei0g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.16]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA01429 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:43:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991031092543.01327a7c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:25:43 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <00ce01bf2324$ae941b80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19991030102326.0131d52c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:12 PM 10/30/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >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. No, the invective was originated entirely by others. >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. I have no problem with your approach as a matter of Law, but it seems to me that it is mainly just an awkward, time-consuming, and unnecessay workaround which accomplishes the same objective, which is to ensure that the opponents provide partner with the information to which he is legally entitled. I'm pretty sure that David and Grattan would find it equally "unethical" and "specious", although I probably should not be speaking for them under the circumstances. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 03:30:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:44:11 +1100 (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 BAA10522 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:44:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei0g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.16]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA03910 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:43:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991031094116.01327360@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:41:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <381BC37A.32960B99@pinehurst.net> References: <3.0.1.32.19991030102326.0131d52c@pop.mindspring.com> <00d601bf2325$6e8d9d80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:20 PM 10/30/99 -0700, Nancy wrote: >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??? Your comments illuminate one of the limitations of any Law which seeks to regulate subjective intention, rather than objective behavior. How easy it is for us to turn a mental switch and convince ourselves of the legitimacy of our motives! Sorry, but if the Stevenson/Endicott position is the correct one, then it won't do simply for you to tell yourself that you are asking for your own information, when your actual motive is to protect partner's interest, however legitimate. Obviously, my own position is that such mental gymnastics are unnecessary, since the Laws do not bar you from asking such questions in the first place. >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?????? Before the 4th seat bids, ideally. However, in a friendly, informal game, this kind of by-play often occurs without objection. Usually the comment is meant in a joking fashion, rather than as a genuine indication of any special sort of interest by second seat. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 03:31:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 03:31:43 +1100 (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 DAA10947 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 03:31:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04079 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:31:18 +0100 Received: from ip97.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.97), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda04075; Sun Oct 31 17:31:14 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:31:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <003401bf229f$abde99e0$205108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <003401bf229f$abde99e0$205108c3@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 DAA10951 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 07:25:41 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ 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 ~ +=+ It seems to me that Mike's position makes a lot of sense, particularly when the uncompromising wording of L20F is taken into consideration. Even if L73 is considered to cover this situation (and I agree with Mike that it is not obvious that it does), all it does is to forbid something that is directly allowed by L20F. Then we still need an interpretation to determine which of those two laws takes precedence. IMO none of the two interpretations can be said to be contrary to the law text. This means, of course, that the correct thing to do in practice is to follow the current official interpretation. But that is not a reason to not discuss the other possibility. I don't see any great problem in letting players ask for their partner's benefit - always provided that the asking is done to ensure that partner knows the opponents' system, not to ensure that he is aware of a particularly interesting call. I believe that the game would be a better game if everybody knew their opponents' system. And I therefore believe that any way of getting nearer to that ideal should be adopted unless it has serious disadvantages. The possibility of players illegally asking in order to call attention to a significant event instead of to opponents' system is IMO not a serious disadvantage. As Nancy says, allowing asking for partner's benefit would make it a lot easier for a partnership consisting of a beginner and a more experienced player to play against opposition with non-beginner-like systems (the typical situation is when a beginner plays as a substitute in the more experienced partner's club). And I definitely believe that such a situation will be much more pleasant for everybody and more in the spirit of the game if the beginner is helped to be aware of the meaning of the opponents' calls. As for "sophistry of the most specious kind, unworthy, and utterly to be disregarded": - I find it sad that discussions on BLML have reached that level of (non-)argumentation. - If Mike's possible stretching of the words of L73 to reach his interpretation really deserves those words, which words should we then use to characterize the WBFLC when it issues an official "interpretation" of L25B that is directly contrary to the letter of the law? - The fact that the WBF has felt the need to issue a formal interpretation contrary to Mike's might seem to indicate that Mike's reading of the law is/was quite common, and thus probably not so completely ridiculous as Grattan and David seem to find it. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 03:31:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 03:31:38 +1100 (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 DAA10943 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 03:31:29 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04080 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:31:18 +0100 Received: from ip97.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.97), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb04075; Sun Oct 31 17:31:17 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: the year zero, or 2007? Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:31:17 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C280@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> 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 DAA10944 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree completely with David about L25B. In addition, I would like to add that it also has the serious problem that it blurs the distinction between that which is allowed and that which is not allowed by using words like "penalty" and "offender" about the consequences of a perfectly legal action. If you "may" do something, then the consequences should not be described as a "penalty". -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 03:43:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:04:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe19.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA10424 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:03:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 48814 invoked by uid 65534); 31 Oct 1999 14:02:47 -0000 Message-ID: <19991031140247.48813.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.162.144] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.19991030102326.0131d52c@pop.mindspring.com> <00d601bf2325$6e8d9d80$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <381BC37A.32960B99@pinehurst.net> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:02:26 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 understand Kaplan's remarks of 1981, they relate to the situation where a side has been misled by an explanation as opposed to when no explanation has been made. Perhaps it was intended to extend to that as well. The idea being that partner will be better put to base his action on correct inferences instead of incorrect inferences. While this is so, the process of informing partner also constitutes an improper communication, one that could be viewed as harmless but one I am inclined to view as contributing to the inferences available to partner that will aid in his play. The primary one being that of concern if he were considering action or perhaps of encouragement if he was not. As such, once done the red flag has been raised "that partner wants to be sure I know something the opponents did not think to tell me". I for one would not like to rule on such a matter and would prefer that such a practice be discouraged that it occur infrequently, preferably by those that do not yet know better. I would also hope that appropriate protection would be available to the other side that waited until the proper time to unearth the MI, but my own personal experience suggests that Kaplan had motivation for his attitude. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Nancy T Dressing Cc: Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 10:20 PM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > 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?????? I would think it would be the point in time that it was evident that the resulting call did not meet the announced standard for the action taken. [In America, I believe that it is League policy that failure to call immediatley greatly diminishes the likelihood of redress.] However, the case is strong that a gratuitous remark should be addressed immediately but my experience has been even in games of high standard that it is not uncommon that dozens of gratuitous remarks are made during a hand and TDs exhibit displeasure for being called so frequently. > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 04:49:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 04:49:56 +1100 (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 EAA11276 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 04:49:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.218.221] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11hz6o-0007g4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:49:39 +0000 Message-ID: <001701bf23c8$384d88e0$dddaac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <01a201bf244b$5e46ab20$00dd868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:49:00 -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 Peter wrote: > Anne continued: > >As I understand it, the EBU line is that this is an illegal system at all > >except level 4,..... > > If you mean that 2D for the majors is an illegal system, I'm sure that > would not be the case in this part of the world. > Just to clarify this: at level 4, any defence to 1NT is permitted. At level 3, it is not permitted to play that, for example, a 2D overcall shows diamonds or the majors (a form of the so-called "psychic Astro" convention that nobody ever played explicitly, but that people played in much the same way as NS in the original case). The difficulty is more or less the same as that encountered with psychic bidding. Consider a pair who bid thus: S W N E 1NT 2D Pass 2H Pass 3D Pass Pass East explains 2D as majors, then passes 3D (when he would do no such thing were 3D a game try in hearts); West has diamonds; North-South complain; East says "I took the view that he'd forgotten." Now, if this were genuinely the first time EW had ever had this bidding sequence, they have broken no Law and should be allowed to play in 3D. Henceforward, of course, they would have "partnership experience" that meant they were, in effect, playing a method whereby 2D meant "the majors if he's remembered, diamonds if he's forgotten", and this method is not licensed below Level 4. In practice, we just got fed up with people telling us this was the first time it had ever happened, honest it was, cross my heart and hope to die. We got even more fed up with the Wests who told us that they'd decided to psyche their 2D overcall. So we simply ruled against them anyway. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 04:59:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 04:59:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA11301 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 04:59:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11hzFp-0006Bv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:58:57 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19991031185255.00b25870@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:52:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships In-Reply-To: <018701bf2440$3583cc00$00dd868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:07 01-11-99 -0800, you wrote: >Derrick Heng wrote: > >>2) Assuming that Pass is a demonstrably suggested LA to 3D, what >>adjusted score would you assign ? > > >Derrick's other two questions have been answered by people more >qualified than me; I think Question (2) deserves more than a vague answer. > >So that you don't have to read boring analysis, I've written *** before >the key points. > >I think *2H -2* is appropriate for EW and I favour *2H -2* for NS, >marginally ahead of *2H -3*. >Most likely is CJ lead and a trump switch. The play diverges now >depending on whether North inserts an honour and whether East >ducks HK. One possibility at this level of bridge is: >C lead, trump switch ducked to HA, D to A, C ruff, S to A, SQ exit, >HQ to K, S ruff, CK cashed, C ruffed and overruffed, D to K. Down >two. To make seven tricks, declarer has to make a deduction he is >not allowed to make, in order to hook the diamond. There are of >course many other possible sequences of play. > >Had declarer played diamonds instead of opening up the spade suit, >2H -3 is certain when H10 is inserted at Trick 6. I'm not sure if this is >enough to rule 2H down three for NS. > >***Would, and should, TDs be expected to notice that declarer may get >locked in dummy as in some of the above analysis? > >Ton Kooijman said: >"analyzing is not easy. One off seems reasonable." > >Marv French said: >"my guess is +50.....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." > >***So a group of TDs is still a good way to analyse the play of a hand >in this age of instant communications by email? >Are TDs the most expert analysts? If so, they should be playing in, and >possibly winning, World Championships. >***Yet TDs are expected to do the analysis, or else the matter is meant >to reach an AC. This seems to be a waste of resources. >***In these days of instant communication by email, wouldn't it be more >sensible for a panel of expert analysts to be available by email to assist >TDs in their rulings? >The TDs wouldn't have to spend lots of time analysing bridge play, which >is not part of their training. Less hands would go to ACs. And it would >stop the particular TD who sometimes approaches one of my teammates >for advice between hands. >Admittedly the panellists would need to be briefed on the meaning of >"most favourable result that was likely" and "most unfavourable result that >was at all probable". Note that in practice the TD's email to the panel >would probably get only a few responses in time, but those responses >should be enough to provide useful guidance. >I think this would be an improvement to bridge. And at worst (no >responses in time), the TD is no worse off. >I could try to gather together a panel, on request. Eric Kokish would be >the first person I'd ask. To quote David Burn in another recent thread >"Anything would be better than the current situation, in which ......swings >depend on no more than which particular judge hears the case." > like in the real world :) regadrs, anton > >Peter Gill >Sydney Australia. > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 05:19:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 05:19:18 +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 FAA11349 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 05:19:11 +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; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:19:02 -0800 Message-ID: <01a601bf23cc$684de860$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "David J. Grabiner" Cc: , , , References: <3.0.6.32.19991031014702.007ec910@pop.singnet.com.sg> <3.0.6.32.19991031013928.007a5100@mail.wcnet.org> Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:14:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Okay, okay, I forgot a "contestant" is a team, not a pair. I had a feeling something was wrong. Marv (Marvin L. French), who wrote: > > >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. David Grabiner corrects this: > > 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 Mon Nov 1 05:53:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 05:53:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from mxb.usuhs.mil ([131.158.7.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA11435 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 05:52:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis ([131.158.186.130]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:44:45 -0500 Message-ID: <006601bf23d1$0a6fcf60$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> <381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be> <000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <381C024B.87084EDE@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:52:11 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 3:48 AM Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > But listen Hirsh. > > We are discussing the merits of the answer "no agreement". > > I am saying that it is, at the very least, an incomplete > answer. I would likely be in agreement *if* this pair had played together before. > I don't believe it is true, barring a partner from Inner > Mongolia. > I would expect the pair, when asked, to explain a little > more, even provide a guess. That guess would be the basis > of the explanation, and > if it turns out to be wrong, I would rule misinformation, > although I know that others perhaps would not. Fair, that's > what the discussion is all about. > No. The correct information is that the pair has no agreement. This is particularly true in pairs that have not played together previously. Any guess or speculation would either a) get lucky or b) be MI, but in neither case would it be an explanation of an *agreement*, which is what we are required to disclose. > Now you confound the issue triplefold. > > You allow a player to omit an alert, and accept that this is > equivalent to "We have no agreement, but if pressed, I will > explain it as take-out". When the non-alert, from someone > who know his system, is equivalent (by the ACBL regulation) > to "penalty". > No, if pressed the player should stick to his explanation of "no agreement". Any speculation he made to the nature of his partner's call would be more of a general bridge lesson to his opponents, not an explanation of an agreement at all. > And you maintain there is no MI ? > > Come on. > > A non-alert, just like an alert, IS an explanation. You can > expect a player to ask about the meaning of an alert, since > all it means is "not standard". But you cannot expect a > player to ask about the meaning of a non-alert. That > meaning should be "standard" or we have no need whatsoever > of the alert procedure. > My position on what an alert is, which I believe is supported by ACBL regs as well as Law 40, is above. The intent of the alert is to make sure that the opponents have access to all of the information that a player does during the auction. Did the pro in Marv's auction have any information that Marv or his partner did not, either through partnership discussion, partnership agreement, or implicit system agreements? IMO the answer is no. There was no agreement, and in the absence of an agreement the alert procedure cannot apply. The alert procedure is there to insure disclosure of agreements, not to force the opponents to give bridge lessons. Marv had the same information the pro did (and reached the same conclusion). His partner reached a different conclusion. That's the rub of the green. As long as nothing was concealed, and a first time partnership doesn't usually have all that much to conceal (I'm hammering on this first-time partnership point a lot because it is critical. I rule differently with an established partnership), there is no MI. For that matter, there is no "I". The bid is on the table, and everyone, partner and opponents alike, must use their general bridge knowledge to decipher it. In this case, the competitive nature of a low-level balancing double is almost completely universal, to the point where making the inference that it is penalty (and trying to get a ruling based on that, particularly against a first time partnership) would be bridge lawyering, except perhaps in the novice game. Also note the points below, from the introduction to the ACBL alert regs, that I have indicated with arrows. Marv knew what was happening, even if his partner did not. Whether or not he should call the TD at the time he became aware of the possible infraction (even if it might result in giving information to partner) is a topic that relates to a concurrent thread. Regardless, he should have summoned the TD at the end of the auction, since he was aware of the possible failure to alert, with no risk of UI to his partner. In this case, the TD would have ruled no MI and play would have continued. However, if MI had been present, his partner would have been able to take back her final pass and compete, if, as Marv claims, she was intimidated by MI. By waiting until dummy is down, Marv is taking a double shot. If 2S is a good spot for his side, there it plays. If it's a bad spot.."DIRECTOR!!!". He gets to play 2S, and have the auction adjusted to 3H if that turns out not to work. Bad move. Marv was aware of the possible infraction, but did not summon the TD at the proper time to protect his side. The ACBL regs make it very clear that Marv's inaction may well have mitigated his right to redress, even had MI been present. Hirsch ----- >From ACBL alert regs pamphlet: INTRODUCTION Law 40.B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited 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. The objective of the Alert system is for both pairs at the table to have equal access to all information contained in any auction. In order to meet this goal, it is necessary that all players understand and practice the principles of full disclosure and active ethics. Ethical bridge players will recognize the obligation to give complete explanations. They will accept the fact that any such information is entirely for the benefit of the opponents and may not be used to assist their own partnership. Bridge is not a game of secret messages; the auction belongs to everyone at the table. Remember that the opponents are entitled to know the agreed meaning of all calls. The bidding side has an obligation to disclose itsagreements according to the procedures established by ACBL. When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient. The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically. The proper way to ask for information is "please explain". Players who remember that a call requires an Alert but cannot remember the meaning must still Alert. In all Alert situations, tournament directors should rule with the spirit of the Alert procedure in mind and not simply by the letter of the law. --------> Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves. Adjustments for violations are not automatic. There must have been misinformation. An adjustment will be made only when the misinformation was a direct ause (sic) of the damage. --------> Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 06:27:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 06:27:23 +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 GAA11534 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 06:27:12 +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 ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:26:58 -0800 Message-ID: <025401bf23d5$e6105720$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199910291808.AA12089@gateway.tandem.com> <3.0.6.32.19991030201054.0081b800@mail.wcnet.org> Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:26:45 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 L. French wrote: (Let's make clear that these are ACBL words, not mine!) > > >###### > >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. Nitpicking: That's "in the last denomination named," not the last-named call. If a forcing passer is willing to play in the denomination just named by RHO,but only if it is doubled, that does not constitute a convention. A player who has opened the bidding surely could have an agreement with partner that accepting and making a free bid over RHO's BOOT requires extra values. That would not mean that a pass constitutes a convention, would it, even though it shows a range of, say, 12-14 HCP? Note in passing (pun unintended): L30C still gives a supplemental definition of a conventional pass, to go with the general definition of a convention in the Definitions section up front. I don't know why the Definitions section does not reference L30C, as it did in the previous edition of the Laws. Anyone reading the definition of "convention" up front would never dream that there is a supplemental definition somewhere within the Laws. L30C, second sentence: A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it promises more than a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. That belongs in the Definitions section, I believe, under Conventions. Is it clear? Not to me. Hmm. If my pass of RHO's spade bid promises or denies values in spades, it's not a convention? Is that second clause necessary? Where is that wordsmith? Anyway, I guess it means that a reverse agreement to the one I described, requiring opener to bid over a BOOT with a minimum and pass with more, would be an illegal convention in ACBL-land. No harm in that! > > 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. True of any natural bid, I believe, not just 1NT. And so, the ACBL regulation violates the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. What else is new? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 08:09:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:09:03 +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 IAA11728 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:08:55 +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 QAA24907 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA20569 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:08:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:08:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199910312108.QAA20569@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > 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. I agree with you, but the ACBL didn't until recently. See below. Of course you don't have any obvious reason to care what the ACBL thinks. (You lucky fellow!) > From: "Marvin L. French" Thanks for digging these out. The following is apparently the new regulation; at least, I haven't seen this text before. Do you have a date on that "Tech" file? [from ACBL Tech files] > 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. > Now, I find the regulation in a different form (why?), under ACBL Conventions > Regulations on the ACBL web site: The text below was the old regulation. It is from before 1987, probably long before, but I don't have a date. Evidently the web site hasn't been updated yet. (I thought the old text had been removed, but it seems I was wrong. Sorry for directing people to the archive site when the text was so easily available.) > 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 need to restate my opinion of that! We can be grateful it has been changed. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 08:33:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:33:48 +1100 (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 IAA11850 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:33:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveija.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.106]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA03077 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:33:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991031162816.0131ac7c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:28:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <199910301731.NAA19576@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:31 PM 10/30/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >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! Not from me. >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. Although the incident Kaplan described was, arguably, an instance of MI in the first case (although this was not perfectly clear), the body of his argument makes no such distinction between what you have called the "Kaplan question" and the Pro question. His argument is that it is legal to ask for an explanation solely for partner's benefit, so long as the asking itself is non-informative. >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. Thanks. I'm glad someone else confirms this omission. While we're on the subject of what's not in L73B1, there's another point along these lines. David, Grattan, et al obviously make a distinction between a question asked for the purpose of learning information for yourself and a question asked for the purpose of ensuring that partner is fully informed. But L73B1 contains no language whatsoever about "purpose" or "intent". So if we are to accept the proposition that L73B1, as written, outlaws questions which result in partner learning about the opponents' agreements, then such a question amounts to illegal communication per se, without regard to the intentions of the asker. That effectively makes _all_ questions illegal. Of course, as we have seen, there is nothing to prevent people from reading rather more into the text than is present in the ordinary meanings of the words themselves. >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. I am not completely clear on this point. The authority for the WBFLC to amend the Laws by commentary is not to be found in the Laws themselves. Perhaps the charter of the WBFLC, agreed to by the Zonal authorities, grants the force of Law to extra-textual pronouncements and interpretations voted on by that body. I plead ignorance of the underlying technical issues in this regard. I have no doubt, however, that such a policy would be misguided. The Laws should stand on their own as far as possible. It is quite messy enough that various SO's are granted authority to issue "supplementary" regulations, which, in some instances, conflict with the Laws as written. Especially so since these supplementary regulations, at least in the ACBL, are not made available in any comprehensive source, but are instead scattered amongst various publications, including the Bulletin, Active Ethics brochures, Director's training materials, and others. If you really want people to obey the Laws, then it is important to at least make it possible for people to know what the Laws actually are. Few enough know or understand the written Laws. The expectation that millions of bridge players will go beyond the written Laws to keep up with the shifting sands of WBFLC interpretations is completely unrealistic, even if there were some way to disseminate such interpretations broadly. Presumably to maintain some stability and consistency, there is a ten-year cycle for amending or rewriting the Laws. A procedure which allows re-interpretation of these Laws at the whim of the WFBLC would seriously undermine that wise policy. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 08:37:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:37:26 +1100 (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 IAA11876 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:37:16 +1100 (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 QAA00416 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:12:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA14539 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:02:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:02:06 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199910312102.QAA14539@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: AJdzZ7XlWVtOosL/bk32+w== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: > As for "sophistry of the most specious kind, unworthy, and > utterly to be disregarded": > - I find it sad that discussions on BLML have reached that level > of (non-)argumentation. Hear, hear! I don't have much to add to what Jesper wrote, but as part of this argument is about whether the official interpretation of L73B1 is "obvious" from the wording of the Laws, I'd just like to say that, like Mike Dennis, Steve Willner and Jesper, I don't think it is at all obvious. The extract from Kaplan's 1981 Bridge World editorial that Mike posted suggests that the wording of the law (down to the word "through" that Grattan attaches such importance to) has not changed in any material way since that time, and that Kaplan at that time agreed with Mike's position. If the lawmakers were so clear that the intention was to outlaw the asking of questions for partner's benefit, I am rather puzzled that they did not say so explicitly, since the interpretation of the law as written was controversial to the extent that one of their number had espoused a different interpretation in public. Jeremy --- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 10:19:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:19:59 +1100 (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 KAA12219 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:19:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from p4bs05a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.101.76] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11i4G3-0006zn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 15:19:31 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Irrational or Careless ?(New) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:19:12 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf23f6$573ff700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was called to a table today where a concession of three of the last four tricks had occurred. Diamonds were trumps and the last four cards were Dummy void void 10 764 void West East 43 void void 865 J9 void void 3 South void 742 void Q East leads a heart and West says(waving the J of trumps) It'll be one to us and the rest to you. East immediately objects, and says, no, if you throw a spade dummy is end played. I ruled according to L68 and L71 and was convinced that West had no intention of doing other than playing a trump. I ruled one trick to E/W and 3 tricks to N/S. I then spoke to East and told him that in objecting to his partner's concession, it was not his business to tell his partner how to play the hand. "Well, I had to" he said. "He didn't know!" The whole table collapsed in laughter. E/W are both Grand Masters and regularly represent their country. Without the comment from East, I am sure I would have ruled that to play a trump would not be "normal" play for a player of this standard. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 10:29:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:29:08 +1100 (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 KAA12238 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:29:00 +1100 (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 11i4P3-0001rV-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:28:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:05:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships References: <001c01bf2334$10207f60$63d5f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <001c01bf2334$10207f60$63d5f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton kooijman 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)? >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. When I suggested to the EBU L&EC that commonsense should be allowed in obvious positions [eg 1NT - 2H - 2S when the 2H is not meant as a transfer, and in rebidding a suit in the example position] I was in a minority of one. The simple argument is that knowledgeable ethical players will do themselves a lot of harm in these positions, so why should ignorant or unethical players benefit from non-harsh rulings? -- 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 Mon Nov 1 12:23:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:23:54 +1100 (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 MAA13047 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:23:44 +1100 (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 QAA20822 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:23:33 -0900 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:23:33 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991030201054.0081b800@mail.wcnet.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, David J. Grabiner wrote: [snip] > > A range agreement for a pass is a convention; a pass is conventional unless > it indicates willingness to play in the last-named call. The latter statement is true. It does not imply the former. There are a number of situations wherein one might use a pass to show values and a desire to defend the opponents' currently-bid contract. Is not the definition in the law book quite clear? "A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." Apparently even using a pass over an opponents' bid to promise the king of their trump suit (to help partner decide whether to double or bid on) is not a convention. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 12:42:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:42:24 +1100 (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 MAA13526 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:42:15 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id dEYPa26614 (4245); Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:41:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.506d428b.254e49cf@aol.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:41:35 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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 10/30/99 9:30:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: > 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 Did anyone expect me to keep quiet? Having counted Edgar as a friend and mentor for many reasons and decades, I clearly continue to remember that there were three Edgars. The Guru, the player, and the bon vivant, expert in wines and close friend. They were frequently quite different. Having worked many years with Laws that were written specifically with "wiggle room" so that Edgar could easily defend either side, and did so in numerous instances, I find this thread leading to nothing. Edgar was wrong, his defense was eminently self serving, he knew he was wrong, and he was thumbing his nose at the powers in being at the time, since he had very little faith that the TDs would get it right. (for what it's worth, the last thought was probably accurate) The Laws (and Rules) are for all players, Edgar included, or does no one remember Geneva 1990 either? If there is someone out there that can convince me that,........ having heard an incomplete explanation and therefore entitled as we (partner and I) are to a redress if damage arises AND IN WHICH THE LAWS, TDS, AND ACS WILL PROTECT ME,..... I can now pose a question solely and clearly in violation of the Law to wake up my partner (ain't that communication?) .Tell me that I have not violated Law 16 and 73 to start with by demonstrating little faith in the Laws WHICH I MYSELF WROTE FOR THE MOST PART ....... and I'm not doing something wrong, -- please try! I'm a bit rattled like you get when someone asks you to define and pronounce the English word "bow." Without a context, the exercise is ridiculous. This seems to be the underlying basis of a bunch of BLML threads. Besides, how do you like the grammar in the foregoing? -- Ah yes, some of those Americans -- lousy grammar but do get the message across pretty often. I hope that a definition of pedigree is not appropriate to this subject -- lineage of purebred animals. Ain't seen none of those in a long time. Pretty soon we can extend the opposing arguments to "my partner plays better than I do, so since you won't let him help me get as complete an understanding of the hand as he has, I'll just go to the bathroom and let him play the hand." (a form of transfer declarer that would make many professional players so very happy though not operable in this case) Seems to me that David and Grattan were rather soft spoken and restrained Britishers with their use of terms. I can think of a lot more descriptive and colorful ones. Fondly, (to all, including the poor mislead souls like Herman who live in a world different from the rest of us), Kojak PS. I read the first posting on this subject, wrote the above, and then read the rest. Must be getting smarter in my dotage. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 13:03:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:03:07 +1100 (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 NAA13655 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:02:59 +1100 (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 RAA22615 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:02:52 -0900 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:02:52 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? In-Reply-To: <025401bf23d5$e6105720$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I searched for and didn't find L30C when I flipped through the laws before writing my last post. I had another look at 30C, and at Marvin's post, and realized I had to amend my remarks I just send a tad. Sorry 'bout sending twice as many emails as I needed to. This law does indeed appear to make at least most range agreements about passes conventions. Marv has proposed that the supplemental definition given in 30C be added to the definition in the front of the law book. I would propose that it was never the intention of 30C to change the definition of convention, but rather, was to treat any pass with a special meaning, whether conventional or not, as if it were a bid out of turn; i.e., 30C should read "When the pass out of rotation is conventional, or when it promises more than a specified amount of strength, L31 applies." I also think we can do better than the phrase "more than a specified amount of strength." Perhaps "if pass promises more strength than some other legal call promises"? Example: Pass-Pass-1C-Pass-1S-POOT by the 1C opener. The POOT promises 8 to 11-12 points; is it a convention? I have dug myself in deep enough for one day, I think. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 17:34:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:34:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from aurora.uaf.edu (aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19332 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:33:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.uaf.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA30880 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:33:13 -0900 (AKST) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:33:13 -0900 (AKST) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Recent club ruling Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I sat North in last Friday's pair game. (Sorry Herman, we weren't able to participate in the SS Finland.) Pairs, Board 23, S Dealer, All vul. K653 85 AK43 KJ2 S W N E A J987 pass 1C(1) pass 1D(2) AKJ7 Q43 pass 1H pass pass Q962 87 1S pass 3D(3) pass AT93 Q654 3S pass pass pass QT42 Lead: HK, down 2 -200 to N/S T962 JT5 87 (1) 1C was not alerted. It is standard and natural, but this pair has agreed never to pass a 1C opening. (2) 1D was not alerted. It was explained after the final pass as "less than six points, any distribution." (3) Limit raise or any GF. North calls the director and explains that since 1D was artificial, a double on the second round would accurately describe his hand, and N/S would not get to 3S under any circumstance. The first question was "were N/S damaged"? I said yes, since without the MI, N/S would not have received -200 under any reasonable construction of the auction. Unfortunately, South was the director, and North the asst. director, so we found ourselves in a bit of a dilemma, since our own impartiality is questionable. So we brought in an expert consultant. We asked him to predict the auction after p-(1C)-p-(1D); p-(1H)-X.... Three reasonable possibilities were ...(2H)-All pass, -140 to N/S; or ...(p); 1S-(p)-p-(2H); p-(p)-2S-AP, -100 to N/S. He did not see the auction ending at 1S as even a remote possibility. But another question that apparently must be answered is whether the balancing 1S or the aggressive cuebid were sufficiently bad to sever the tie between the infraction and the damage. Our consultant said he would not have done either one, but he was "sympathetic" to both bids. So I assume that N/S are still entitled to redress. 2S down 1 is both "likely" and "at all probable". -100 to N/S. This was the difference between a top and a bottom, and brought us from a tie for 2/3 to a clear 2nd. -140 would also have been a top. Any comments? Any ideas on how we should handle future director calls with both qualified directors playing in the same partnership? signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot, either." ] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 18:43:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA20470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:14:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20462 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:14:26 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id HAA16540 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:13:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:13 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <000901bf2298$fc062de0$205108c3@swhki5i6> Grattan wrote: > +=+ 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. +=+ Indeed. And it suffers from the same problem. My purpose in asking the question would not be to make partner aware of something (any information/awareness generated by my *asking* would be UI). I would ask a question for the purpose of ensuring that an answer from opponents would fulfil their disclosure obligations. Information from opponents is AI and therefore useful to partner. You could phrase it "Thou shalt not ask a question primarily because you wish partner to be aware of the answer." This would be a change in the law (and one that I consider highly detrimental to helping beginners develop their skills - I would not object to such a regulation being put in place for the Bermuda Bowl for instance). If the change were made I would of course abide by it - until then I will interpret the language of the laws as they are written and do so in an entirely ethical manner. BTW it is ridiculous to assert that the "Lille interpretations" have the force of law. I sincerely doubt that more than 10% of the world's TDs are even aware that such things exist and perhaps 1% of players To accuse a person of sophistry/poor ethics when he makes a genuine attempt to understand the lawbook and interpret it in line with the spirit of the game is at best pathetic and probably malicious. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 19:43:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:05:29 +1100 (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 TAA21893 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:05:19 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA02549 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:04:39 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:04 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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: <0.506d428b.254e49cf@aol.com> Kojak wrote: > If there is someone out there that can convince me that,........ having > heard an incomplete explanation and therefore entitled as we (partner > and I) are to a redress if damage arises AND IN WHICH THE LAWS, TDS, > AND ACS WILL PROTECT ME,..... I can now pose a question solely and > clearly in violation of the Law to wake up my partner (ain't that > communication?) .Tell me that I have not violated Law 16 and 73 to > start with by demonstrating little faith in the Laws WHICH I MYSELF > WROTE FOR THE MOST PART ....... and I'm not doing something wrong, > -- please try! I do not think this will convince you but... I do not believe that keeping quiet and relying on a later adjustment is the best way to help a developing partner improve her skills. Much better to get the MI sorted immediately and let her try applying judgment on the proper facts. (Note: one will almost certainly get a better score by waiting for an adjustment than by relying on partner's limited skills in real play but so what!) If the question itself (rather than the answer) creates UI then so be it (making UI available is not illegal) opponents are also protected by L16. I also believe that most players would rather a result be generated at the table than in some later committee. For these reasons I think the law should be interpreted a la the Mike/Public Kaplan doctrine than by the Grattan/DWS/Kojak school. > The Laws (and Rules) are for all players, Edgar included, or does > no one remember Geneva 1990 either? If the laws are indeed for all players then why not try and make them as user friendly as possible for the typical club player. I am unaware of any research carried out at club level into how people generally perceive the spirit of the game and how they want to see it played so I could be wildly off-beam in some of my beliefs - an insight into this research and the associated methodology could convince me to change my opinion of how the law should be interpreted. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 20:43:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:24:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from aurora.uaf.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22453 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:24:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.uaf.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA32677 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:24:15 -0900 (AKST) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:24:15 -0900 (AKST) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: On the wisdom of cooking a bird on the wing. In-Reply-To: <3819694C.8C2434AC@omicron.comarch.pl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: : > 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. Happened to me once. I'm not exactly a top-class player, so I wasn't really sure what was goin on when both of my opponents put their hands away. A moment later I realized that if a key suit split, the rest are mine on top tricks, but if not, simple squeeze. However, I like to estimate by boards as I play. If squeeze 65%, if suit breaks, average. Shouldn't the opponents at least show their hands when conceding all tricks? signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "An atheist is a man with no invisible means of support." ] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 1 23:12:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 23:12:20 +1100 (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 XAA27375 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 23:12:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA00832; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:11:37 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JHTOHSY3DA003YQ5@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:03:52 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Mon, 01 Nov 1999 12:24:40 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 12:10:31 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C287@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 > > >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. > > When I suggested to the EBU L&EC that commonsense should be > allowed in > obvious positions [eg 1NT - 2H - 2S when the 2H is not meant as a > transfer, and in rebidding a suit in the example position] I was in a > minority of one. > > The simple argument is that knowledgeable ethical players will do > themselves a lot of harm in these positions, so why should ignorant or > unethical players benefit from non-harsh rulings? That argument is not just simple, it is too simple. We have laws to apply in which this argument can not be found. Your example is almost embar(r)a(s)sing, of course it shows spades and hearts when he now bids 3H. I meant my remark about repeating a suit as showing the suit as a joke. The question is whether a player is still allowed to use his brains after a misbid/explanation. The answer should be: 'yes' and in the auction discussed here passing 3D is not based on unauthorized information. That is my opinion. ton > -- > 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 Tue Nov 2 00:52:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:52:34 +1100 (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 AAA27588 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:52:26 +1100 (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 IAA09274 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:52:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991101085347.00715850@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 08:53:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: <38182C0E.8EFBADEC@village.uunet.be> References: <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 12:57 PM 10/28/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >The alert is just part of the explanation. Perhaps the entire debate is really about this simple statement. Marv, for example, takes the position that given the exact alert regulations, the alert may in fact constitute the complete explanation. IMO, David S. has it right: The alert is not part of the explanation at all; it is nothing more than telling the opponents that they might wish to ask for the explanation. 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 Nov 2 01:37:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 01:37:49 +1100 (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 BAA27854 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 01:37:41 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id dKIOa09341 (4263); Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:24:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.bc14bd1e.254efc80@aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:24:00 EST Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? To: elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/1/99 9:00:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > Perhaps the entire debate is really about this simple statement. Marv, for > example, takes the position that given the exact alert regulations, the > alert may in fact constitute the complete explanation. IMO, David S. has > it right: The alert is not part of the explanation at all; it is nothing > more than telling the opponents that they might wish to ask for the > explanation. Yep, another case of clear thinking. We started something called the "Alert" and we told everyone that all it means is that what you just heard from my partner should not be assumed to have the meaning generally associated with it. PLEASE ASK if you need to find out what it means. But our linguists have now given it a meaning and life of it's own. Muddled, misleading, dangerous concept by them? You bet. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 01:42:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 01:42:03 +1100 (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 BAA27900 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 01:41:55 +1100 (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 JAA14959 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:42:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991101094308.0072e3dc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 09:43:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: careless v irrational In-Reply-To: <1pFW+6Ap6FG4Ew8u@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19991028085808.0071cdf0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.3.32.19991028023048.007efde0@pop.ihug.co.nz> <000701bf20a1$f4db4ee0$a9e6abc3@davidburn> <3.0.1.32.19991028085808.0071cdf0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:33 PM 10/28/99 +0100, David wrote: >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. I really don't see the difference. Some people would lead the 2 from AK2 also, but the ACBL has said that this is "irrational", and I agree. It facilitates the adjudication of claims, and produces equitable results in the sense that the opponents don't get tricks that they really don't deserve. Of course, in real life, I try to be careful, not because I think I'd be deprived of tricks in an adjudication, but because I'd rather avoid the adjudication in the first place. (e.g. With SJ95/HAK and the only missing spade the S10, I could claim "three spades and two hearts", and feel entitled to take them, but in real life I will say "three spades and two hearts; I know the S10 is out". 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 Nov 2 01:44:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 01:38:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27879 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 01:38:48 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id vBBNa05338 (4263); Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:12:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.f486a8c.254ef9bb@aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:12:11 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/1/99 3:45:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk writes: > If the laws are indeed for all players then why not try and make them as > user friendly as possible for the typical club player. I am unaware of > any research carried out at club level into how people generally perceive > the spirit of the game and how they want to see it played so I could be > wildly off-beam in some of my beliefs - an insight into this research and > the associated methodology could convince me to change my opinion of how > the law should be interpreted. Sure, let's make the game more player responsive. My main point, and this is one of many examples I've seen in the recent past, is that the Law says a certain thing, which is what we must do at this time. These "interpretations" to bend the Laws or look for words that can be taken out of context in instances where they are not responsive, or unduly harsh, lenient, off-base, what-have-you, are the self-serving aberrations that I can't support. If the evolving game needs Laws that are different, then let's get off our butts and provide them. But, once you sit down to play under a certain set of Laws (or even Conditions of Contest, Rules, Regulations, etc.), that's THAT game. I believe the WBF charter for the WBF LC says that we must review them at least every ten years. It doesn't say we can't review them more often. Lot's of work? You bet, but there is where the value of the BLML lies in my opinion. Discussion, suggestion, innovative proposals. Not "interpretations" that require reading words to suit one's fancy. A principle, frequently espoused by Edgar was that there are general Laws and specific Laws. Where there is a specific Law it applies to that situation even if the general Law does not appear to adequately cover it. Don't say they are in disagreement - they are part of a structure within which we operate. I always am greatly interested in seeing new ideas, better wording, incisive development. I am not impressed by finding arcane meanings which are then immediately used "....when I rule this is what I think the Law says....." By the way, thanks for the accolade. Being mentioned as part of the DWS/Grattan school is a fine compliment. Would that my contributions to that school were as valuable. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 02:19:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:19:08 +1100 (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 CAA28259 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:18:59 +1100 (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 KAA18775 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:18:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991101101856.006c53ec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 10:18:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Non-Random Deals In-Reply-To: <3818DF6E.BF7E9D00@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:42 AM 10/29/99 +0200, Dany 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... It is not bridge played in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, which require that deals be random, but it is nonetheless "legitimate bridge" -- SOs can, and do, hold such "special contests" under special sanction, but properly require that the special conditions be known to the players in advance. It is entirely ethical, indeed appropriate, to use different methods for what is, both legally and realistically, a different game from "ordinary duplicate bridge". Such a game is, from a legal perspective, the same as a par-hand contest. 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 Nov 2 02:22:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:22:14 +1100 (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 CAA28282 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:22:03 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01587 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:21:53 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199911011521.KAA01587@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:21:53 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Oct 30, 99 02:48:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > > 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? > Would it be helpful for me to post the entire editorial in question? Or would it be fanning the flames? In fact, as I believe has been pointed out, he makes it clear that this was but a single case. And that he would do so again. And uses language like "No one is likely to convince" him that he was wrong. And to my knowledge never publicly altered that stance. At least he never said so in a BW editorial. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 02:37:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:37:28 +1100 (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 CAA28341 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:37:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveial.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.85]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA19107 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:37:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991101103346.0131ef5c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 10:33:46 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <0.506d428b.254e49cf@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:41 PM 10/31/99 EST, Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 10/30/99 9:30:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, >msd@mindspring.com writes: > >> 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 > >Did anyone expect me to keep quiet? Having counted Edgar as a friend and >mentor for many reasons and decades, I clearly continue to remember that >there were three Edgars. The Guru, the player, and the bon vivant, expert in >wines and close friend. They were frequently quite different. Having worked >many years with Laws that were written specifically with "wiggle room" so >that Edgar could easily defend either side, and did so in numerous instances, >I find this thread leading to nothing. Edgar was wrong, his defense was >eminently self serving, he knew he was wrong, and he was thumbing his nose >at the powers in being at the time, since he had very little faith that the >TDs would get it right. (for what it's worth, the last thought was probably >accurate) The Laws (and Rules) are for all players, Edgar included, or does >no one remember Geneva 1990 either? > I have relied in my own analysis upon the only relevant public sources that are known to me: the legal language which Kaplan at least claimed authorship of, and his forceful commentary on the matter laid out in the 1981 Bridge World editorial. Others (you and Grattan, in paticular) enjoyed a personal/professional relationship with the man which may give you useful insight into his thinking. But in the end, an argument about what Kaplan did or didn't think and why is merely an exercise in idolatry, whether one agrees with his position in this regard or disparages it. I cited his analysis in the first place not because I believe we are bound in any respect by an 18-year old Bridge World editorial, but only in self-defense against the charge that my arguments are "specious...utterly to be disregarded" and "rubbish, ... unethical and immoral." >If there is someone out there that can convince me that,........ having heard >an incomplete explanation and therefore entitled as we (partner and I) are >to a redress if damage arises AND IN WHICH THE LAWS, TDS, AND ACS WILL >PROTECT ME,..... I can now pose a question solely and clearly in violation of >the Law to wake up my partner (ain't that communication?) .Tell me that I >have not violated Law 16 and 73 to start with by demonstrating little faith >in the Laws WHICH I MYSELF WROTE FOR THE MOST PART ....... and I'm not >doing something wrong, -- please try! Well, I would have thought I was doing nothing else in this thread, but I welcome an offer of another chance! An important principle in the Laws, as I'm sure I need not remind you, is that players are entitled to full and clear explanations of the opponents' agreements. Among other tools, the Laws seek to advance this value by authorizing the asking of questions, per Law 20F. This is an imperfect procedure, to be sure, in that it poses risks of UI and even opportunities for outright cheating. But the importance of the "full disclosure" value and the degree to which this value is advanced by the ability to ask questions are, presumably, thought to be greater than the potential difficulties and drawbacks of the procedure. Thus it bears close scrutiny when someone seeks to limit that right. And certainly the right should not be unlimited! We all agree that using such questions for the purpose of soliciting particular bids or plays from partner is an abuse of the procedure, and there is no dispute that L73B1 sensibly disallows that practice. But questions asked solely for the purpose of ensuring that the opponents fulfill their disclosure obligations (for partner's benefit), do seem consistent with the full disclosure principle. What, exactly, is the downside to such questions? As Jesper has pointed out, the sputtering invective on the other side has been curiously devoid of any serious argumentation. I think Marv has come closest to articulating a principle upon which to pin an objection to these questions: "It still smacks of helping partner, and I feel that partners must fetch for themselves." Perhaps so, but this is a principle which is not quite so clearly expressed in the Laws as the principle of disclosing partnership agreements. In fact, in a number of instances, the Laws make allowance for actions which conflict with this principle. To cite just two examples: -->L42B allows dummy to question declarer to prevent a revoke or a LOOT. The right of defenders to question each other to prevent a revoke is a zonal option. -->When partner incorrectly reviews the auction (upon the request of the opponents), you have not merely the right but the responsibility to correct him. What do these examples have in common? It seems that the Laws do countenance various questions and comments whose purpose is to prevent an irregularity or to restore the conditions of contest closer to the ideal envisioned in the Laws. And, of course, that is precisely the purpose of the "partner's benefit" questions. They nudge the game closer to the ideal of fully and freely available information about opponents' bidding agreements, and may serve as well to forestall MI and its attendant complications. As Nancy's comments illustrate, such questions can be especially important in helping an inexperienced partner understand what is going on. So much for the positive case about why these questions ought to be allowed. If L73B1 truly disallows such questions, then this is merely a strong case for revising the law. But the language is _at best_ ambiguous on this point: "Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them." Previously, I have only excerpted the text which specifically applies to questions. But it is helpful, I think, to see that language in context. Notice that each of the other forbidden behaviors entail direct communication per se. Is it reasonable to suppose that the words about questions mean precisely what they say, especially when laid alongside these other phrases? If so, then the text _as written_ only disallows questions which are in and of themselves communicative. Note also the lack of any reference whatsoever to purpose or intent. If we decide, for reasons which are frankly obscure to me, that the wording forbids questions which have the effect of informing partner about the opponents' agreements, then that "communication" occurs without regard to the intention of the person doing the asking, and that effectively outlaws all questions, contrary to the clear meaning of L20F. Finally, there is the problem of enforceability. Without any objective standard for distinguishing between acceptable questions and unacceptable ones, nor any mechanism for enforcing the rule or sanctioning transgressors, an interpretation that disallows these questions is less a law than it is an appeal to conscience, or an aesthetic judgement, perhaps. Such a "law" is out of place alongside the carefully crafted regulations which comprise the body of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 02:38:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:38:41 +1100 (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 CAA28360 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:38:33 +1100 (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 KAA21093 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:39:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991101103955.006c4c48@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 10:39:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:42 AM 10/29/99 +0100, John wrote: >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 have had this exact circumstance arise. A regular partner and I were discussing bidding theory at home. We talked about insufficient bids: After an auction like 2S-2H-?, what would be the differences in meaning among (a) accepting 2H and bidding 2S, (b) accepting 2H and bidding 3S, and (c) refusing to accept 2H, planning to bid 3S over the 99.999% likely 3H correction? Some time later, we were playing in an ACBL tournament and the situation arose. Partner accepted and made a bid, and I alerted and informed the opponents of the discussion we had previously. They called the TD, who ruled "no infraction"; they appealed. They argued before the AC (correctly) that the ACBL had a regulation in effect which prohibited partnerships from having any special agreements about actions over opponents' infractions. We argued that we had had our discussion, could not "un-have" it, and that faced with a choice between revealing it to the opponents or not revealing we had done only what we felt was obviously ethical and proper. After deliberation, we were called back to be informed of the AC's decision. The chairman told us that we would be allowed to get away with it this time, but should never do it again. We asked him to tell us exactly what it was that "we should never do again" -- was he really prohibiting us from having conversations about bidding theory in our living rooms? He told us to shut up and go home. 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 Nov 2 03:34:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:34:19 +1100 (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 DAA28567 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:34:00 +1100 (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 LAA28636 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:29:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA21239 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:18:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:18:47 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199911011618.LAA21239@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: dX9IapBKXascfBEIN792KQ== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: > Sure, let's make the game more player responsive. My main point, and this is > one of many examples I've seen in the recent past, is that the Law says a > certain thing, which is what we must do at this time. These > "interpretations" to bend the Laws or look for words that can be taken out of > context in instances where they are not responsive, or unduly harsh, lenient, > off-base, what-have-you, are the self-serving aberrations that I can't > support. I'm afraid you have missed the point. Mike, Tim, Steve, Jesper and I (and maybe others) are not trying to bend the Laws or take words out of context to support our views of what the Laws should say. We *genuinely* do not think that the wording of L73B1 conveys the meaning that you, David and Grattan claim that it does. I am quite willing to believe that the lawmakers intended that it *should* convey this meaning, but in that case, I'm afraid they failed to make their intention clear, because several intelligent and literate people have misunderstood them. Please understand that when you have a firm opinion of what a law means, it is very easy to convince yourself that that meaning should be obvious to anybody reading the law. In this case it is *not* obvious. Jeremy --- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 03:36:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:36:13 +1100 (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 DAA28586 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:36:06 +1100 (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 LAA27466 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:36:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991101113730.0073a828@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 11:37:30 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: <381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be> References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:15 PM 10/29/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >Non-alerting is equivalent to expaining the call as having >the non-alertable meaning... No, no, no! "A non-alertable meaning", NOT "THE non-alertable meaning"! At least half of the confusion, hassle, pain and hard feelings engendered by alert rules would go away if people simply understood this distinction. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 03:47:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:47:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA28651 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:47:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11iKbe-000DAJ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:46:57 +0000 Message-ID: <$JKf1TAM$YH4EwHC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:04:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <0.506d428b.254e49cf@aol.com> >Kojak wrote: > >> If there is someone out there that can convince me that,........ having >> heard an incomplete explanation and therefore entitled as we (partner >> and I) are to a redress if damage arises AND IN WHICH THE LAWS, TDS, >> AND ACS WILL PROTECT ME,..... I can now pose a question solely and >> clearly in violation of the Law to wake up my partner (ain't that >> communication?) .Tell me that I have not violated Law 16 and 73 to >> start with by demonstrating little faith in the Laws WHICH I MYSELF >> WROTE FOR THE MOST PART ....... and I'm not doing something wrong, >> -- please try! > >I do not think this will convince you but... I do not believe that >keeping quiet and relying on a later adjustment is the best way to help a >developing partner improve her skills. Much better to get the MI sorted >immediately and let her try applying judgment on the proper facts. (Note: >one will almost certainly get a better score by waiting for an adjustment >than by relying on partner's limited skills in real play but so what!) If >the question itself (rather than the answer) creates UI then so be it >(making UI available is not illegal) opponents are also protected by L16. > >I also believe that most players would rather a result be generated at the >table than in some later committee. For these reasons I think the law >should be interpreted a la the Mike/Public Kaplan doctrine than by the >Grattan/DWS/Kojak school. Even at club level I do not think players would wish you to communicate with partner however high-minded your reason. Don't forget, your reason may be pure: the next player who communicates with partner will not be as pure. You think if a player knows partner does not realise that a double is penalties he will *always* ask? Not a chance! -- 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 Tue Nov 2 03:47:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:47:31 +1100 (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 DAA28649 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:47:22 +1100 (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 11iKbe-000DAK-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:46:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:12:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Recent club ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Schmahl wrote: >I sat North in last Friday's pair game. (Sorry Herman, we weren't able to >participate in the SS Finland.) > >Pairs, Board 23, S Dealer, All vul. > > K653 > 85 > AK43 > KJ2 > S W N E >A J987 pass 1C(1) pass 1D(2) >AKJ7 Q43 pass 1H pass pass >Q962 87 1S pass 3D(3) pass >AT93 Q654 3S pass pass pass > > QT42 Lead: HK, down 2 -200 to N/S > T962 > JT5 > 87 > >(1) 1C was not alerted. It is standard and natural, but this pair has >agreed never to pass a 1C opening. >(2) 1D was not alerted. It was explained after the final pass as "less >than six points, any distribution." >(3) Limit raise or any GF. > >North calls the director and explains that since 1D was artificial, a >double on the second round would accurately describe his hand, and N/S >would not get to 3S under any circumstance. > >The first question was "were N/S damaged"? I said yes, since without the >MI, N/S would not have received -200 under any reasonable construction of >the auction. > >Unfortunately, South was the director, and North the asst. director, so we >found ourselves in a bit of a dilemma, since our own impartiality is >questionable. So we brought in an expert consultant. > >We asked him to predict the auction after p-(1C)-p-(1D); p-(1H)-X.... >Three reasonable possibilities were ...(2H)-All pass, -140 to N/S; or >...(p); 1S-(p)-p-(2H); p-(p)-2S-AP, -100 to N/S. He did not see the >auction ending at 1S as even a remote possibility. Why not ask him to predict the auction after p (1C) p (1D); p (1H) ? You seem to have already decided on the double. It seems to me that if you are going to ask another player for his suggested bidding then you might as well go the whole way. >But another question that apparently must be answered is whether the >balancing 1S or the aggressive cuebid were sufficiently bad to sever the >tie between the infraction and the damage. Our consultant said he would >not have done either one, but he was "sympathetic" to both bids. So I >assume that N/S are still entitled to redress. > >2S down 1 is both "likely" and "at all probable". > >-100 to N/S. > >This was the difference between a top and a bottom, and brought us from a >tie for 2/3 to a clear 2nd. -140 would also have been a top. > >Any comments? Any ideas on how we should handle future director calls >with both qualified directors playing in the same partnership? In judgement cases playing Directors should rule against themselves then appeal. The ruling seems reasonable to me. -- 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 Tue Nov 2 03:48:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:15:17 +1100 (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 DAA28509 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:15:06 +1100 (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 LAA25003 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:15:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991101111629.006c924c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 11:16:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: <002601bf2169$e1a17200$fb095e18@san.rr.com> References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am irrationally compelled to pick at an irrelevant nit... At 10:27 AM 10/28/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >"I take it to mean," "I think it means," "Alert, I think," etc., are >unacceptable statements in a pair game... This thread is about the first two statements only. I utter the phrase "Alert, I think", or something very similar, at least once just about every time I play duplicate. My opponents have never misunderstood what this means, viz. "I know perfectly well what my partner's call means, but I have no idea whatsoever whether it is alertable according to today's ACBL regulations." 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 Nov 2 04:44:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 04:33:00 +1100 (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 EAA28874 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 04:32:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-233.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.233]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA22555 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:32:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <381DACA7.D59EAF30@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 16:07:19 +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: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991101085347.00715850@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 12:57 PM 10/28/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >The alert is just part of the explanation. > > Perhaps the entire debate is really about this simple statement. How can that be under debate ? Let's get really nitty-gritty semantic here. "The alert is just part of the explanation." You say is false. So "The alert is not part of the explanation" must be true. Sorry, can't believe that. Or are you discussing the word "just" ? "The alert is the whole of the explanation" No. So we don't debate any longer : The alert is just part of the explanation. Marv, for > example, takes the position that given the exact alert regulations, the > alert may in fact constitute the complete explanation. Marv has never stated that. Nor would he, I believe. Marv and I are saying that a non-alert constitutes a complete explanation. IMO, David S. has > it right: The alert is not part of the explanation at all; it is nothing > more than telling the opponents that they might wish to ask for the > explanation. > Correct, but that was not what we are discussing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 05:36:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 05:36:43 +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 FAA29103 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 05:36:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:35:37 -0800 Message-ID: <031f01bf2497$e1694f20$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:33:22 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > If the laws are indeed for all players then why not try and make them as > user friendly as possible for the typical club player. I am unaware of > any research carried out at club level into how people generally perceive > the spirit of the game and how they want to see it played so I could be > wildly off-beam in some of my beliefs - an insight into this research and > the associated methodology could convince me to change my opinion of how > the law should be interpreted. > Most people at the club level have little perception of the spirit of the game. The best people to consult on this subject are good players in fairly high-stake money games in an open rubber bridge club. That is not duplicate bridge, but the ethical considerations are no different. When playing for a nickel a point, I doubt that the opponents would be understanding when I question a call for the benefit of my pigeon partner. They might just raise an eyebrow, but I would have difficulty getting up a game with them in the future. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 06:00:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 04:32:59 +1100 (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 EAA28873 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 04:32:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-233.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.233]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA22548 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:32:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <381DAB5E.1C942881@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 16:01:50 +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: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> <381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be> <000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <381C024B.87084EDE@village.uunet.be> <006601bf23d1$0a6fcf60$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Hirsh, list, Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > We are discussing the merits of the answer "no agreement". > > > > I am saying that it is, at the very least, an incomplete > > answer. > > I would likely be in agreement *if* this pair had played together before. Or if the pair was obviously on the same track. They agreed (after the facts) that they both interpreted the double in the same manner. > > > I don't believe it is true, barring a partner from Inner > > Mongolia. > > I would expect the pair, when asked, to explain a little > > more, even provide a guess. That guess would be the basis > > of the explanation, and > > if it turns out to be wrong, I would rule misinformation, > > although I know that others perhaps would not. Fair, that's > > what the discussion is all about. > > > > No. The correct information is that the pair has no agreement. This is > particularly true in pairs that have not played together previously. And yet they agreed on the meaning (afterwards). Any > guess or speculation would either a) get lucky or b) be MI, but in neither > case would it be an explanation of an *agreement*, which is what we are > required to disclose. > You and I have different views on what an agreement is. You seem to believe that for something to be an agreement, one has to have proof that the partners agreed to it beforehand. I believe that if it quacks like a duck ... When two players are on the same wavelength, I don't allow them to prove that they had not "agreed" to this. So I rule there was an agreement. And ergo MI if that "meaning" was not disclosed. How else do you wish to rule ? > > Now you confound the issue triplefold. > > > > You allow a player to omit an alert, and accept that this is > > equivalent to "We have no agreement, but if pressed, I will > > explain it as take-out". When the non-alert, from someone > > who know his system, is equivalent (by the ACBL regulation) > > to "penalty". > > > > No, if pressed the player should stick to his explanation of "no agreement". Which is what the discussion started with. Which is an incomplete statement, since they are on the same wavelength. We are discussing that a complete statement (barring a partner from Inner Mongolia) would be "we have not discussed this, but where we come from, this generally shows ...". If that meaning is alertable then the call should have been alerted. You cannot expect the opponents to distinguish between : non-alert = "meaning A" (by regulation or common practice) AND non-alert = "we have not discussed this, but we probably are meaning B" Let's try and distinguish the different problems here, but this one I feel very strongly about. non-alert = 1 standard meaning, nothing else. Every other meaning, and non-alert = MI. > Any speculation he made to the nature of his partner's call would be more of > a general bridge lesson to his opponents, not an explanation of an agreement > at all. > Sorry, but I seem to recall that in the case Marv specified, the opponent was not at all in the know about this "general bridge lesson". Remember the wording of L40B "reasonably expected to understand". This is quite another point altogether, but I don't believe we are in disagreement about this. > > And you maintain there is no MI ? > > > > Come on. > > > > A non-alert, just like an alert, IS an explanation. You can > > expect a player to ask about the meaning of an alert, since > > all it means is "not standard". But you cannot expect a > > player to ask about the meaning of a non-alert. That > > meaning should be "standard" or we have no need whatsoever > > of the alert procedure. > > > > My position on what an alert is, which I believe is supported by ACBL regs > as well as Law 40, is above. The intent of the alert is to make sure that > the opponents have access to all of the information that a player does > during the auction. Did the pro in Marv's auction have any information that > Marv or his partner did not, either through partnership discussion, > partnership agreement, or implicit system agreements? IMO the answer is no. IMO the answer is yes. The pro and his partner considered the double to be take-out, Marv's partner, through the non-alert, considered it to be penalties. So the pro had information that Marv's partner had not. > There was no agreement, and in the absence of an agreement the alert > procedure cannot apply. The alert procedure is there to insure disclosure > of agreements, not to force the opponents to give bridge lessons. Marv had > the same information the pro did (and reached the same conclusion). His > partner reached a different conclusion. Because he was not as good a player, and the pro should have considered that. "reasonably be expected to know", OK ? Now if your ruling in this case is based on the fact that the pro did nothing wrong in reasonably expecting, then your ruling may turn out to be correct, but that is not what we are discussing here, OK ? This case is getting more complex by the minute, no matter how many times I try to cut away unnecessary side branches. > That's the rub of the green. As long as nothing was concealed, and a first > time partnership doesn't usually have all that much to conceal (I'm > hammering on this first-time partnership point a lot because it is critical. First-time does not equal "no agreements". > I rule differently with an established partnership), there is no MI. For > that matter, there is no "I". The bid is on the table, and everyone, > partner and opponents alike, must use their general bridge knowledge to > decipher it. Not when the alert regulations stipulate the meaning of a non-alerted call they don't have to decipher it. But then again, I am no expert in ACBL alert regulations. Marv told me the non-alerted double equalled a penalty meaning, and I am going further on this. If you want to argue with Marv about the non-alerted meaning of the double, please do, but leave me out of that. > In this case, the competitive nature of a low-level balancing > double is almost completely universal, to the point where making the > inference that it is penalty (and trying to get a ruling based on that, > particularly against a first time partnership) > would be bridge lawyering, except perhaps in the novice game. > Be extrememly careful with words like universal, when your bridge knowledge is confined to just one extremely homogenous country. And did Marv's partner share that universal knowledge ? No, and that's all that matters. > Also note the points below, from the introduction to the ACBL alert regs, Sorry, not interested. Not my discussion. > > When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME. I have another good advice : When no alert is given, ASSUME, do not ASK. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 06:17:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:17:30 +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 GAA29254 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:17:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:17:03 -0800 Message-ID: <036301bf249d$aae89d60$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991101085347.00715850@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:16:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 > At 12:57 PM 10/28/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >The alert is just part of the explanation. > > Perhaps the entire debate is really about this simple statement. Marv, for > example, takes the position that given the exact alert regulations, the > alert may in fact constitute the complete explanation. Never said that. Failure to Alert may be a complete explanation, but it is a non-sequitur to assume that the converse is true, and I never said that. Nor did Herman, he said "part," not "complete." > IMO, David S. has > it right: The alert is not part of the explanation at all; it is nothing > more than telling the opponents that they might wish to ask for the > explanation. An opponent Alerts a 2C opening, and I see by the cc that it is natural, a 12-15 HCP opening bid with long clubs. The Alert told me it was not strong and artificial, then the cc completed the explanation. That makes the Alert part of the explanation, if we want to pursue this pointless subject. I once wrote that all Alerted calls should be questioned. Let me amend that by saying that looking at the opposing cc to ascertain the meaning of an Alerted call can satisfy this requirement, and is preferable to (possibly selective) questioning. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 06:22:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:22:24 +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 GAA29287 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:22:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:21:56 -0800 Message-ID: <037b01bf249e$59baa4a0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com><3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991101111629.006c924c@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:21:45 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > I am irrationally compelled to pick at an irrelevant nit... > > At 10:27 AM 10/28/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > > >"I take it to mean," "I think it means," "Alert, I think," etc., are > >unacceptable statements in a pair game... > > This thread is about the first two statements only. I utter the phrase > "Alert, I think", or something very similar, at least once just about every > time I play duplicate. My opponents have never misunderstood what this > means, viz. "I know perfectly well what my partner's call means, but I have > no idea whatsoever whether it is alertable according to today's ACBL > regulations." > "Alert, I think" is ambiguous. It could convey doubt about either the meaning of the bid or its Alertability. Of course your opponents know that YOU know what bids mean, but not everybody is that knowledgeable. Better to just say "Alert" when the meaning of the bid is known. There is no penalty for Alerting a non-Alertable call unless it's done selectively for some reason. "I think" serves no purpose. A digest of the ACBL Alert Procedure is on David Stevenson's web site (http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/acbl_alt.htm) Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 06:27:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:27:17 +1100 (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 GAA29314 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:27:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07800 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:26:53 +0100 Received: from ip250.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.250), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda07796; Mon Nov 1 20:26:47 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 20:26:47 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <7+gdOFrt7Tg3jYyPqoutTlZOIUv=@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <0.506d428b.254e49cf@aol.com> <3.0.1.32.19991101103346.0131ef5c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991101103346.0131ef5c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id GAA29316 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 10:33:46 -0500, "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: >Finally, there is the problem of enforceability. Without any objective >standard for distinguishing between acceptable questions and unacceptable >ones, nor any mechanism for enforcing the rule or sanctioning >transgressors, an interpretation that disallows these questions is less a >law than it is an appeal to conscience, or an aesthetic judgement, perhaps. >Such a "law" is out of place alongside the carefully crafted regulations >which comprise the body of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. On this one point I disagree with Mike: the laws should first of all tell us what we are allowed to do. Enforcement problems should IMO have only a very limited influence on what is allowed and what is not: I do not want the game when played by 4 ethical people to have inferior rules in order to be able to catch a few unethical players in other situations. We cannot stop cheating anyway, so let us concentrate on making the game pleasant in all those situations where nobody is trying to cheat. To get back to what L73B actually means: it seems to me that L73B is basically a law that can be (and is) used as an excuse to forbid just about anything that we want to forbid, while we can conveniently ignore the fact that the literal wording would then logically also forbid lots of other things that we do not want to forbid. There is not necessarily much wrong in that, but there is something wrong in the discussions going on here. We have had two completely analogous examples on BLML lately: Whenever I call attention to any irregularity (as allowed by L9), I provide information to partner. The WBFLC has decided that the correct interpretation of L73B is that it forbids me to call attention to partner's wrongly turned card, but that it nevertheless does not forbid me to call attention to other irregularities. This distinction between L73B's applicability to calling attention to various irregularities was created by a choice of interpretation and is not a part of the law itself. Correspondingly for the current subject (as Mike has already pointed out): Whenever I ask a question (as allowed by L20F), I provide information to partner. The WBFLC has decided that the correct interpretation of L73B is that it forbids me to ask if my intention is to ensure that partner knows the opponents' system, but that it nevertheless does not forbid me to ask if my intention is to ensure that I myself know the opponents' system. This distinction between L73B's applicability to asking questions with one or the other motive was created by a choice of interpretation and is not a part of the law itself. I have nothing against official interpretations like those (though I would prefer clear and logical laws, and though I happen to believe that a different interpretation would be better of each of the cases above) - L73B is open to any interpretation desired. I accept that there are things to be said in favour of these interpretations and that many find them desirable. But they are nevertheless just that: interpretations created by authorities who thereby choose between many possibilities offered by a not very specific law. Even though the interpretations come from the WBFLC, they are not law, and they can be changed much easier than the law itself can. Discussion of the advantages, disadvantages, and legality or not of law interpretations is very much relevant for BLML. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 06:27:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:27:17 +1100 (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 GAA29315 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:27:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07801 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:26:54 +0100 Received: from ip250.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.250), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb07796; Mon Nov 1 20:26:49 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Irrational or Careless ?(New) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 20:26:49 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <01bf23f6$573ff700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf23f6$573ff700$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 GAA29317 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:19:12 -0000, "Anne Jones" wrote: >Without the comment from East, I am sure I would have ruled that >to play a trump would not be "normal" play for a player of this >standard. Surely it would be "normal" for a player who is convinced that he will get only one trick? Taking the jack immediately is very much consistent with his claim statement. I would rule one trick to EW. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 06:44:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:30:57 +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 GAA29348 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:30:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:30:24 -0800 Message-ID: <03a901bf249f$885c17c0$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> <381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be> <000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <381C024B.87084EDE@village.uunet.be> <006601bf23d1$0a6fcf60$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:30:04 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 > Marv knew what was happening, even if > his partner did not. Whether or not he should call the TD at the > time he became aware of the possible infraction (even if it > might result in giving information to partner) is a topic that > relates to a concurrent thread. > Regardless, he should have summoned the TD at the end of the > auction, since he was aware of the possible failure to alert, with > no risk off UI to his partner. In this case, the TD would have > ruled no MI and play would have continued. One cannot call the TD because of a possible failure to Alert. What Law says to do that? > However, if MI had been present, his partner would have been > able to take back her final pass and compete, if, as Marv claims, > she was intimidated by MI. By waiting until dummy is down, > Marv is taking a double shot. If 2S is a good spot for his side, > there it plays. If it's a bad spot.."DIRECTOR!!!". He gets to > play 2S, and have the auction adjusted to > 3H if that turns out not to work. Bad move. Marv was aware of the > possible infraction, but did not summon the TD at the proper time > to protect his side. The ACBL regs make it very clear that Marv's > inaction may well have mitigated his right to redress, even had > MI been present. MI was present, but let that go. Read the regulation more carefully, please. It says I must ask to protect myself when necessary, not that I must ask for partner's benefit. The words are: --------> Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves. "Themselves" refers to the asking players, not to their partners. You do not ask questions in order to protect partner, that is illegal. I did not need protection for myself, so I did not ask. Sure, we get the best of both worlds. That is what the Laws say. No damage, no penalty; damage, apply L12C2. Let players properly disclose what is going on or pay the price for failure to do so. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 07:19:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:19:59 +1100 (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 HAA29556 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:19:52 +1100 (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; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:18:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991101103955.006c4c48@pop.cais.com> References: Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:14:19 -0500 To: Eric Landau From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:39 AM -0500 11/1/99, Eric Landau wrote: >After deliberation, we were called back to be informed of the AC's >decision. The chairman told us that we would be allowed to get away with >it this time, but should never do it again. We asked him to tell us >exactly what it was that "we should never do again" -- was he really >prohibiting us from having conversations about bidding theory in our living >rooms? He told us to shut up and go home. This kind of thing makes me wonder about the sanity of appeals committees. :-) What did you do that got you to that committee? You alerted a putative agreeement which the ACBL says is illegal. If the AC says "don't do it again", I would think "it" must refer to the alert. So the next time the situation comes up, you don't alert, and your defense must be that an AC told you not to, in spite of your previous discussions. :-) 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/AwUBOB313r2UW3au93vOEQIy1gCff1Iggb+9gF5e/ELFuBp36b8U9q8AoIlU xpQnmhEssWomhu9x6lBotMDM =5ZkD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 07:49:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:49:40 +1100 (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 HAA29701 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:49:32 +1100 (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 PAA21010 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:50:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991101155055.00725b68@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 15:50:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships In-Reply-To: <01bf2388$37be3540$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:10 AM 10/31/99 -0000, 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. > >>> 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. Is 2H really alertable? N explains 2D as showing both majors, then bids 2H, and S is required to alert that this shows a preference for hearts over spades? Seems both obvious and natural to me. I don't know your alert rules over there, but this sounds rather odd. 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 Nov 2 07:53:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:00:20 +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 HAA29451 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:00:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:59:46 -0800 Message-ID: <049a01bf24a3$a1c0cea0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0.506d428b.254e49cf@aol.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:58:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote (referring to Edgar Kaplan) > > If there is someone out there that can convince me that,........ > having heard an incomplete explanation and therefore > entitled as we (partner and I) are to a redress if damage > arises AND IN WHICH THE LAWS, TDS, AND ACS > WILL PROTECT ME,..... I can now pose a question solely > and clearly in violation of the Law to wake up my partner > (ain't that communication?) .Tell me that I have not violated > Law 16 and 73 to start with by demonstrating little faith > in the Laws WHICH I MYSELF WROTE FOR THE MOST > PART ....... and I'm not doing something wrong, -- please try! > L16A: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by ... a question ... the playermay not choose, etc. "As by a question" implies that the answer to a question is also UI. This is confirmed by L73A, which prohibits communication with partner through "questions asked," which surely means that the answers would become part of the illegal (not "inappropriate," as the poor title of L73 might suggest) communication. Does it not follow that if a question is UI, the reply is also UI? The information conveyed might normally be AI, but not when obtained in this manner. An opponent questioned my partner's artificial 3D response to Ogust, not when it was Alerted, but before passing out my 3NT bid. He held KQJxx in diamonds. Now, that was an egregiously unethical question, but the answer was information that the opening leader had a right to know. Is it not logical that the answer, per L16A/L73A, has become UI? (If everyone complied with L20F1, asking for an explanation of the auction instead of a particular call, most of this problem would go away. Alerted calls excepted, of course.) But what if a player feels that the opponents have not fully disclosed their partnership understandings in the manner required by the SO? Then, as Kojak implies, the proper action is to call the TD instead of dragging the information out by "inappropriate" questioning. Since failure to disclose properly is an infraction, the TD may be called by a player even when it is not his/her turn to bid! And, by the way, failure to follow cc regulations (two cards in plain view, legible, complete) is one of those infractions. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 08:25:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:25:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from aurora.uaf.edu (fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29836 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:25:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.uaf.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06130 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:25:20 -0900 (AKST) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:25:20 -0900 (AKST) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Recent club ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Two quick factual corrections: On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Michael Schmahl wrote: : I sat North in last Friday's pair game. (Sorry Herman, we weren't able to : participate in the SS Finland.) : : Pairs, Board 23, S Dealer, All vul. : : K653 : 85 : AK43 : KJ2 : S W N E : A J987 pass 1C(1) pass 1D(2) : AKJ7 Q43 pass 1H pass pass : Q962 87 1S pass 3D(3) pass : AT93 Q654 3S pass pass pass : : QT42 Lead: HK, down 2 -200 to N/S : T962 : JT5 : 87 West bid 2D after 1S, not pass. This is why 3D was bid to raise spades. -140 would have been 2 out of 3, not a top. signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks Unsolicited commercial email spellchecked for only $100! No warranties. rand:[ "I'm afraid I don't exist. Sorry." - Milo Sharp ] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 08:42:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:42:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29912 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:42:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:41:52 -0800 Message-ID: <051b01bf24b1$e4e83de0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0.bc14bd1e.254efc80@aol.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:41:41 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: > Eric Landau writes: > > > Perhaps the entire debate is really about this simple statement. Marv, for > > example, takes the position that given the exact alert regulations, the > > alert may in fact constitute the complete explanation. IMO, David S. has > > it right: The alert is not part of the explanation at all; it is nothing > > more than telling the opponents that they might wish to ask for the > > explanation. > > Yep, another case of clear thinking. We started something called the "Alert" > and we told everyone that all it means is that what you just heard from my > partner should not be assumed to have the meaning generally associated with > it. PLEASE ASK if you need to find out what it means. But our linguists > have now given it a meaning and life of it's own. Muddled, misleading, > dangerous concept by them? You bet. > You are helping to spread a falsehood of Eric's, and I don't appreciate it. I have never claimed that an Alert constitutes a complete explanation. The converse, failure to Alert, *can* sometimes constitute a complete explanation: 1S-2C-Dbl is completely explained (standard negative double, implying four hearts) if not Alerted in ACBL-land. There is no TD or AC, even you, who would deny redress for damage if this unAlerted double turned out to be for penalties. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 08:42:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:42:44 +1100 (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 IAA29926 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:42:36 +1100 (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 QAA27043 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:43:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991101164400.00725f60@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 16:44:00 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: <381C0386.2CF5F7BF@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19991029085537.00691620@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:53 AM 10/31/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> 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. > >Forgive me, I do not know the ACBL regulations. >In Belgium, many non-alerted calls are attributed a standard >meaning. Forgive me as well, as I didn't make myself at all clear. I was not attempting to cite any particular set of rules, but rather to set forth the stated philosophy behind the introduction of alerts to the game of bridge (IIRC, sometime in the late 1960s or early 1970s). The principle is that "alert" is supposed to mean "that call has an uncommon, unusual and unexpected meaning of which you may not be aware; you might wish to inquire as to its meaning". All of the various sets of alert rules developed since have been attempts to specify when a statement carrying that meaning is appropriate, but the meaning itself has not changed. In the ACBL, as elsewhere, we have specific rules which state that a failure to alert carries a specific meaning (which is why I included the final qualifying clause in the last sentence of the paragraph cited above), but the rationale for such rules is that in those cases any other meaning is considered uncommon, unusual or unexpected, not that a failure to alert does or should carry a specific meaning as a matter of principle. >A double, for example, is for take-out when over a call >below the Game level at a moment partner has said nothing >but "pass". otherwise it is for penalties. >Any other meaning must be alerted. The rules for doubles in the ACBL are different, and rather more complicated, but the principle is the same. For example, over here 1C-1H-X must be alerted if for penalties; that is considered by the ACBL to be an uncommon, unusual and unexpected meaning (and rightfully so). But some partnerships play that it shows exactly four spades while saying nothing about diamonds (1S would promise five spades), while others play that it shows diamonds and spades (and will readily bid 1S on four spades without diamonds); both are common treatments, and neither is alertable. >But whether or not the "standard" meaning is written down, >or just "common knowledge", the non-alert MUST mean that the >call has the relevant standard meaning, or any alerting is >simply impossible. This is not only false, but this false belief is the source of most of the trouble caused by alert procedures. No two bridge players are likely to agree on the exact definition of "the standard" meaning of any given call in any given sequence, unless the rules state specifically that any meaning other than some particular "written down" one [is considered uncommon, unusual and unexpected, and therefore] must be alerted. In the vast majority of cases, it is (or should be) "common knowledge" that any number of meanings are considered "standard" by a substantial number of players, depending on their usual venue. I should certainly not be surprised to learn that cases in which only one specific meaning is considered "standard" by such a vast majority of players that any other meaning is uncommon, unusual and unexpected occur far more frequently in Belgium than in all of North America, but I would have a hard time believing that, even in a country the size of Lichtenstein, this could be true for every possible call in every possible sequence. 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 Nov 2 08:51:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:00:19 +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 HAA29452 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:00:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:59:47 -0800 Message-ID: <049b01bf24a3$a25657e0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com><04b901bf20a7$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> <3.0.1.32.19991030005942.013054dc@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:59:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 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? > In the old days we would ask partner to leave the table when asking a question whose answer (or the question itself) might be of assistance to him/her. Can't do that anymore, says the ACBL. Perhaps the Laws should make clear, for Mike and others, that the spirit of the game requires players to carefully avoid doing anything that might help partner, aside from legal calls and plays, the only valid means of conveying information to a partner during a deal. Even the right to inquire about a possible revoke is questionable, although permitted in ACBL-land. If the game has really changed over the years, to the degree that asking questions about the auction for partner's benefit is permissible, then that should also be made clear. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 09:11:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:11:27 +1100 (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 JAA00195 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:11:19 +1100 (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 RAA29978 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:11:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991101171244.00728f20@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 17:12:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: <381C024B.87084EDE@village.uunet.be> References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> <381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be> <000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:48 AM 10/31/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >But you cannot expect a >player to ask about the meaning of a non-alert. That >meaning should be "standard" or we have no need whatsoever >of the alert procedure. Why on earth not? It happens all the time. You open 1S. No alert is given. At the end of the auction, the defender contemplating his lead asks "did your 1S opening promise five spades?" Is there something wrong with this? Is Herman really suggesting that the only correct answer to such an inquiry is "1S is standard and I am not required to say anything further"? Around here people are hauled before C&E committees for giving such answers, and rightfully so. If Herman's view were correct, we wouldn't have an alert procedure, as it would make a lot more sense to have a "'standard' procedure" -- if partner's call carried the only possible standard meaning, one would say "standard", which would fully explain partner's call, else the opponents would know that they need to inquire. After all, it would be a lot more natural and intuitive for one word to convey a complete explanation of the meaning of partner's call than for silence to do so. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 10:45:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:45:25 +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 KAA00504 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:45:16 +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 SAA09979 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:45:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA21637 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:45:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:45:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911012345.SAA21637@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > I'm a bit rattled like you get when someone asks you to define and pronounce > the English word "bow." Without a context, the exercise is ridiculous. Yes, this is a good idea. Could you give us an example of when you would give a L73B1 penalty or adjusted score (and which?) for a "pro question?" Of course the pro will insist that the question was strictly for his own benefit, and the client will insist that if the pro hadn't asked, he would have asked the same question himself at his own turn. What facts will you look for to determine otherwise? > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Without any objective > standard for distinguishing between acceptable questions and unacceptable > ones, nor any mechanism for enforcing the rule or sanctioning > transgressors, an interpretation that disallows these questions is less a > law than it is an appeal to conscience, or an aesthetic judgement, perhaps. In the long run, if it is desired to enforce the WBF LC interpretation, I'm thinking we need an analog to L73F2. This is a well-established structure: L73F1 and L16A are the enforcement provisions of L73C, and L73F2 is the enforcement provision of L73D and E. We don't seem to have a corresponding provision for the _answer_ part of L73B1. (We have L16A for the _question_ part.) It might say, for example, "If the Director determines that a player, with no demonstrable bridge reason to know the answer, has asked for an explanation of the opponents' auction (or for a review of the auction), [and the player's partner has received useful information he wouldn't otherwise have known], the Director shall award an adjusted score." I am quite dubious that the above language is what we want; especially the part in square brackets seems highly doubtful. But perhaps it gives the flavor of what we might need. Perhaps all will become clear, though, with Kojak's answer to the questions above. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 11:10:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:10:56 +1100 (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 LAA00600 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:10:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from pe6s10a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.90.231] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11iRWs-0006aM-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:10:27 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:10:21 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf24c6$a73bc560$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Monday, November 01, 1999 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships >At 10:10 AM 10/31/99 -0000, 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. >> >>>> 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. > >Is 2H really alertable? N explains 2D as showing both majors, then bids >2H, and S is required to alert that this shows a preference for hearts over >spades? Seems both obvious and natural to me. I don't know your alert >rules over there, but this sounds rather odd. I would have expected it to be alertable in the same way as the completion of a transfer is alertable here. DB says he does not think it is. I have waited for DS to come down on one side or the other. Of course in a jurisdiction where it is not alertable, then N has no UI. EBU alerting regs say that calls which do _not_ require an alert include "a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any other suit, that suit will be at least four cards before opener rebids, but may be on 3 cards from then on" Logically, if responder to 2D overcall of 1NT, will pass 2D if holding 2/2 in the majors, then the bid of 2H will promise at least 3 cards, and in the auction 1NT-2D-P-2H (before openers rebid), the 2H bid is always alertable. In the auction 1NT-P-P-2D-P-2H (after openers rebid) then the 2H is alertable if it may be 2 cards. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 12:22:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:22:48 +1100 (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 MAA00857 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:22:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-237-183.s183.tnt9.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.237.183]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id UAA20449 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:22:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006401bf24d0$ad3cbe60$b7eda4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991101085347.00715850@pop.cais.com> <381DACA7.D59EAF30@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:22:05 -0500 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, November 01, 1999 10:07 AM Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? > > "The alert is not part of the explanation" > > must be true. > > Sorry, can't believe that. > Believe it. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 12:42:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:42:00 +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 MAA00925 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:41:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:41:29 -0800 Message-ID: <05ee01bf24d3$5d659120$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Asking for Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:40:57 -0800 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 Tim West-Meads wrote: > If the laws are indeed for all players then why not try and make them as > user friendly as possible for the typical club player. I am unaware of > any research carried out at club level into how people generally perceive > the spirit of the game and how they want to see it played so I could be > wildly off-beam in some of my beliefs - an insight into this research and > the associated methodology could convince me to change my opinion of how > the law should be interpreted. > Most people at the club level have little perception of the spirit of the game. The best people to consult on this subject are good players in fairly high-stake money games in an open rubber bridge club. That is not duplicate bridge, but the ethical considerations are no different. When playing for a nickel a point, I doubt that the opponents would be understanding when I question a call for the benefit of my pigeon partner. They might just raise an eyebrow, but I would have difficulty getting up a game with them in the future. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 12:50:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:50:26 +1100 (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 MAA00961 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:50:13 +1100 (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 11iT5A-000IXv-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 01:49:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:15:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <3.0.1.32.19991028085808.0071cdf0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.3.32.19991028023048.007efde0@pop.ihug.co.nz> <000701bf20a1$f4db4ee0$a9e6abc3@davidburn> <3.0.1.32.19991028085808.0071cdf0@pop.cais.com> <1pFW+6Ap6FG4Ew8u@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991101094308.0072e3dc@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991101094308.0072e3dc@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >I really don't see the difference. Some people would lead the 2 from AK2 >also, but the ACBL has said that this is "irrational", and I agree. It >facilitates the adjudication of claims, and produces equitable results in >the sense that the opponents don't get tricks that they really don't >deserve. Of course, in real life, I try to be careful, not because I think >I'd be deprived of tricks in an adjudication, but because I'd rather avoid >the adjudication in the first place. (e.g. With SJ95/HAK and the only >missing spade the S10, I could claim "three spades and two hearts", and >feel entitled to take them, but in real life I will say "three spades and >two hearts; I know the S10 is out". Perhaps it is time to make sure that we all know what we are talking about. If you claim "three spades and two hearts", knowing the S10 is out, then you have made a poor claim *statement*. If you claim "three spades and two hearts", having forgotten the S10 is out, then you have made a poor *claim*. What we are talking about in effect is what a TD should *do* if you claim "three spades and two hearts". If you convince him that you knew the S10 was out then he should give you all the tricks. If you do not convince him, then he should ...... For my money, he should give the defence a trick [or perhaps more]. I also believe that is what you deserve if you knew the S10 was out but did not say so. This whole thread is about what the TD should do if he is unconvinced that the player knew what he was doing. I believe to play 9 or 5 before the knave is careless, and my evidence for that is that it is done at my table by people who think all the cards are good. -- 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 Tue Nov 2 12:56:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:56:15 +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 MAA00997 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:56:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:55:38 -0800 Message-ID: <065001bf24d5$57322000$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com><3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be><008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis><381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be><000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <3.0.1.32.19991101171244.00728f20@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:55:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 09:48 AM 10/31/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > > >But you cannot expect a > >player to ask about the meaning of a non-alert. That > >meaning should be "standard" or we have no need whatsoever > >of the alert procedure. > > Why on earth not? It happens all the time. You open 1S. No alert is > given. At the end of the auction, the defender contemplating his lead asks > "did your 1S opening promise five spades?" Is there something wrong with > this? Is Herman really suggesting that the only correct answer to such an > inquiry is "1S is standard and I am not required to say anything further"? > Around here people are hauled before C&E committees for giving such > answers, and rightfully so. > I would refuse to answer the question at that time, and would call the TD because of the UI conveyed by the question. For one thing, the answer is plainly on the cc, or should be. For another, the correct question by the opening leader is, "Please explain your auction." Questioners are supposed to avoid reference to a particular call. Anyone asking a pointed question of this sort should be hauled before a C&E committee. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 13:05:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:05:13 +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 NAA01041 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:05:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:04:33 -0800 Message-ID: <066401bf24d6$964b9400$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911012345.SAA21637@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:04:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Schoderb@aol.com > > I'm a bit rattled like you get when someone asks you to define and pronounce > > the English word "bow." Without a context, the exercise is ridiculous. > > Yes, this is a good idea. Could you give us an example of when you > would give a L73B1 penalty or adjusted score (and which?) for a "pro > question?" Of course the pro will insist that the question was > strictly for his own benefit, and the client will insist that if the > pro hadn't asked, he would have asked the same question himself at his > own turn. What facts will you look for to determine otherwise? > > > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > > Without any objective > > standard for distinguishing between acceptable questions and unacceptable > > ones, nor any mechanism for enforcing the rule or sanctioning > > transgressors, an interpretation that disallows these questions is less a > > law than it is an appeal to conscience, or an aesthetic judgement, perhaps. > > In the long run, if it is desired to enforce the WBF LC interpretation, > I'm thinking we need an analog to L73F2. This is a well-established > structure: L73F1 and L16A are the enforcement provisions of L73C, and > L73F2 is the enforcement provision of L73D and E. We don't seem to > have a corresponding provision for the _answer_ part of L73B1. (We > have L16A for the _question_ part.) It might say, for example, "If the > Director determines that a player, with no demonstrable bridge reason > to know the answer, has asked for an explanation of the opponents' > auction (or for a review of the auction), [and the player's partner has > received useful information he wouldn't otherwise have known], the > Director shall award an adjusted score." > Make that "...he might not otherwise have known," and you have a good Law. No way to prove "wouldn't." Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 14:29:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:29:38 +1100 (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 OAA01322 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:29:29 +1100 (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 11iUdC-000Ogn-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:29:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:19:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships References: <01bf24c6$a73bc560$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf24c6$a73bc560$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >I would have expected it to be alertable in the same way as the completion >of a transfer is alertable here. DB says he does not think it is. I have >waited for DS to come down on one side or the other. Of course in a >jurisdiction where it is not alertable, then N has no UI. >EBU alerting regs say that calls which do _not_ require an alert include >"a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any other >suit, that suit will be at least four cards before opener rebids, but may be >on 3 cards from then on" >Logically, if responder to 2D overcall of 1NT, will pass 2D if holding 2/2 >in the majors, then the bid of 2H will promise at least 3 cards, and in the >auction 1NT-2D-P-2H (before openers rebid), the 2H bid is always alertable. >In the auction 1NT-P-P-2D-P-2H (after openers rebid) then the 2H is >alertable if it may be 2 cards. No-one in England alerts a preference bid, nor would I ever expect a TD or AC to give a ruling that involves alerting such a bid. Quite frankly, I did not realise there was this error in our alerting regs until it was pointed out to me on RGB a few months ago. I have it in hand for correction in OB 2003. 2H is a natural bid, and we do not alert it therefore. The fact that we have made a nonsense in the definitions is just one of those things. I have apologised for this before, both here and on RGB. It is not possible to come up with perfect rules. -- 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 Tue Nov 2 14:29:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:29:23 +1100 (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 OAA01313 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:29:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from [212.140.100.52] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11iUd7-0001TH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:29:06 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf24e2$55705fe0$34648cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <01bf24c6$a73bc560$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Ruling from ASEAN Bridge C'ships Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:28:29 -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: > I would have expected it to be alertable in the same way as the completion > of a transfer is alertable here. DB says he does not think it is. I have > waited for DS to come down on one side or the other. Of course in a > jurisdiction where it is not alertable, then N has no UI. > EBU alerting regs say that calls which do _not_ require an alert include > "a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any other > suit, that suit will be at least four cards before opener rebids, but may be > on 3 cards from then on" On whichever side of the fence DWS comes down, he will not have a soft landing. Of course, it's all our fault. We have decreed (absurdly) that the completion of a transfer is alertable because it is not natural; we have forgotten to decree (equally absurdly) that when partner has shown two suits, preference is alertable because it is not natural either. We may or may not have to fix this in the next Orange Book. It depends on whether DWS, who is adopting a lamentably practical approach to such matters, deems it worth fixing. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 15:25:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:25:25 +1100 (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 PAA01532 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:25:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveie4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.196]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA00759 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 23:25:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991101232227.012f642c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 23:22:27 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <199911012345.SAA21637@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:45 PM 11/1/99 -0500, Steve wrote: .>In the long run, if it is desired to enforce the WBF LC interpretation, >I'm thinking we need an analog to L73F2. This is a well-established >structure: L73F1 and L16A are the enforcement provisions of L73C, and >L73F2 is the enforcement provision of L73D and E. We don't seem to >have a corresponding provision for the _answer_ part of L73B1. (We >have L16A for the _question_ part.) It might say, for example, "If the >Director determines that a player, with no demonstrable bridge reason >to know the answer, has asked for an explanation of the opponents' >auction (or for a review of the auction), [and the player's partner has >received useful information he wouldn't otherwise have known], the >Director shall award an adjusted score." > >I am quite dubious that the above language is what we want; especially >the part in square brackets seems highly doubtful. But perhaps it >gives the flavor of what we might need. I share your sense of dubiousness. I see the following problems with your suggestion: 1. How does the TD get involved in the first instance? You and your partner conduct an auction involving your usual esoteric methods, one of the opponents asks for an explanation, which you provide cheerfully. There is nothing which you can detect in the asking of the question to suggest a particular call or play, and indeed the subsequent actions by asker's partner seem quite normal, particularly in the context of your explanation. When you call the TD over, what will you tell him by way of an explanation for what he is supposed to rule on? 2. I recognize the "no demonstrable bridge reason" language-- it comes from L73F2 (Player injured by illegal deception). I would submit that it is orders of magnitude more difficult to establish this basis with respect to the asking for an explanation. In general, it can be useful to ask for an explanation _any time_ you are uncertain about the meaning of the opponents' actions (whether it is good tactics is a separate issue). The information may be helpful in planning your own actions, or just a useful aid in reading the opponents' table manners. You have no idea when in the subsequent development the information might turn out to be vital, and to ask at a critical juncture is more likely to be a source of UI to partner. So what it boils down to is that the only time you would truly have "no demonstrable bridge reason" for asking is when it can be shown that you already know the answer to a fair certainty. And unless you admit to that knowledge, this is simply an exercise in mind-reading. 3. The bit in brackets is, as you have already pointed out, especially troubling. How exactly do we establish that partner would not have asked for himself, or even that he didn't know it in the first place? Still more mind-reading to do. 4. Worst of all, the opponents who may well be guilty of MI in the first place are not only off the hook for their real transgression, but have even gained thereby. Which is not to say that your efforts in this respect are without merit. At the least, your attempts to shoehorn this interpretation into the normal enforcement framework demonstrate once again how out of place this particular "law" really is. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 16:06:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:06:02 +1100 (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 QAA01654 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:05:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegjr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.123]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA17201 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:05:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991102000246.0130dce8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 00:02:46 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: <049b01bf24a3$a25657e0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19991029070944.01319e20@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991028162035.012f4640@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <04b901bf20a7$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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:59 AM 11/1/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: >In the old days we would ask partner to leave the table when asking a >question >whose answer (or the question itself) might be of assistance to him/her. >Can't >do that anymore, says the ACBL. Perhaps the Laws should make clear, for >Mike >and others, that the spirit of the game requires players to carefully >avoid >doing anything that might help partner, aside from legal calls and >plays, the >only valid means of conveying information to a partner during a deal. >Even the >right to inquire about a possible revoke is questionable, although >permitted >in ACBL-land. There is nothing the least bit questionable about dummy's right to ask such a question, and the right for defenders to do the same is granted at the discretion of the SO (L61B). It is quite clear as well that dummy may help declarer avoid a LOOT (L42B2). Players can also "help partner" by correcting an incorrect review provided by partner(L20E). And finally, it is perfectly OK to ask for an explanation for your own edification, even when the answer will also "help partner" (L20F). So the Laws are riddled with exceptions to the principle that "the spirit of the game requires players to carefully avoid doing anything that might help partner, aside from legal calls and plays, the only valid means of conveying information to a partner during a deal." As I have said elsewhere, these allowances share a common theme: they protect your right to act in a way which either forestalls an irregularity or advances an important value in the Laws. I submit that "asking for partner's benefit" is also in this category, since it advances the principle of full disclosure. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 16:51:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:51:21 +1100 (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 QAA01806 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:51:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-87-160.s160.tnt6.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.87.160]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA23769 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:50:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003b01bf24f6$3457fe80$a057accf@hdavis> 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> <000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <381C024B.87084EDE@village.uunet.be> <006601bf23d1$0a6fcf60$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <381DAB5E.1C942881@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:50:36 -0500 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, November 01, 1999 10:01 AM Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? > Hello Hirsh, list, > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > You and I have different views on what an agreement is. > You seem to believe that for something to be an agreement, > one has to have proof that the partners agreed to it > beforehand. No. I believe that there must have been partnership discussion or experience for there to be an agreement. If I am making a ruling, I do not automatically assume either agreement or no agreement. I investigate the facts, and make the best determination I can. If I believe that there was partnership information that was not revealed to the opponents, I rule against the offenders under L40B. However, I also recognize that 1) established partnerships have more agreements than first time partnerships and 2) no partnership in the world has an agreement for every situation that can occur at the bridge table. > I believe that if it quacks like a duck ... If a player makes an undiscussed call, and his partner takes it as the most common meaning of that call, that does not necessarily mean that they have an agreement. If it's a common situation and the pair is experienced, then the burden of proof falls on them to show there was not an agreement, and I will rule against them more often than not. If it's a new partnership, I won't try to hold them to the same level of partnership agreements as the established pair. If it quacks like a duck, I will check to see if it's a duck, but I won't assume it's a duck. > When two players are on the same wavelength, I don't allow > them to prove that they had not "agreed" to this. So I rule > there was an agreement. If there indeed was one, great. However, I prefer a deeper investigation rather than ruling by rote. Your style does not permit a new partnership to land on its feet. Ever. If they do, there was an agreement and you rule against them. I don't know the name of the game you direct, but it's not bridge. > And ergo MI if that "meaning" was not disclosed. > How else do you wish to rule ? > Since I don't automatically grant your premise of MI, the question is meaningless. > > > Now you confound the issue triplefold. > > > > > > You allow a player to omit an alert, and accept that this is > > > equivalent to "We have no agreement, but if pressed, I will > > > explain it as take-out". When the non-alert, from someone > > > who know his system, is equivalent (by the ACBL regulation) > > > to "penalty". > > > > > > > No, if pressed the player should stick to his explanation of "no agreement". > > Which is what the discussion started with. > Which is an incomplete statement, since they are on the same > wavelength. No. It is MI if they have an agreement, partnership experience, or other partnership discussion they have not disclosed to the opponents. If they get an undiscussed situation correct without discussion, the statement was complete. Players are not required to disclose their intentions. They are required to disclose *agreed* meaning of bids only. Note that if they get an undiscussed situation correct, they have probably established an implicit agreement that would have to be disclosed in the future. Not, however, the first time the partnership experienced it. > We are discussing that a complete statement (barring a > partner from Inner Mongolia) would be "we have not discussed > this, but where we come from, this generally shows ...". > This explanation is gratuitous and unnecessary. If there is an agreement, it must be disclosed in full. If there is no agreement, that ends the explanation. > If that meaning is alertable then the call should have been > alerted. > No! You do not alert a call because other players in your club play it that way. You alert it because that is the way you play it with your partner. If you don't know how this partner plays it, but are making a guess, there can be no alert. > You cannot expect the opponents to distinguish between : > non-alert = "meaning A" (by regulation or common practice) > AND > non-alert = "we have not discussed this, but we probably are > meaning B" > The sentence above should stop at "we have not discussed this", and yes, a non-alert can mean that, as well as showing a range of treatments that fall under "non-alertable" in the SO's regs. If it gets as far as "we are probably meaning b", then there is more likely to have been discussion. > Let's try and distinguish the different problems here, but > this one I feel very strongly about. non-alert = 1 standard > meaning, nothing else. > Every other meaning, and non-alert = MI. > This is wrong. Eric is doing a far better job of indicating this than I. > > Any speculation he made to the nature of his partner's call would be more of > > a general bridge lesson to his opponents, not an explanation of an agreement > > at all. > > > > Sorry, but I seem to recall that in the case Marv specified, > the opponent was not at all in the know about this "general > bridge lesson". So? She got it wrong. She had the same information about the partnership's agreements as everyone else. That doesn't mean that she must come up with the same conclusion. Disclosure ends when the opponents have the same information available to them that the player does (including information that the player may have forgotten). > Remember the wording of L40B "reasonably expected to > understand". Also remember the words "special partnership agreement". > This is quite another point altogether, but I don't believe > we are in disagreement about this. > > > IMO the answer is yes. The pro and his partner considered > the double to be take-out, Marv's partner, through the > non-alert, considered it to be penalties. So the pro had > information that Marv's partner had not. > No, the pro reached a different conclusion than Marv's partner on the same information. > > There was no agreement, and in the absence of an agreement the alert > > procedure cannot apply. The alert procedure is there to insure disclosure > > of agreements, not to force the opponents to give bridge lessons. Marv had > > the same information the pro did (and reached the same conclusion). His > > partner reached a different conclusion. > > Because he was not as good a player, and the pro should have > considered that. "reasonably be expected to know", OK ? > Now if your ruling in this case is based on the fact that > the pro did nothing wrong in reasonably expecting, then your > ruling may turn out to be correct, but that is not what we > are discussing here, OK ? > > This case is getting more complex by the minute, no matter > how many times I try to cut away unnecessary side branches. > You haven't cut away any branches. You keep misunderstanding simple distinctions. > > That's the rub of the green. As long as nothing was concealed, and a first > > time partnership doesn't usually have all that much to conceal (I'm > > hammering on this first-time partnership point a lot because it is critical. > > First-time does not equal "no agreements". > > > I rule differently with an established partnership), there is no MI. For > > that matter, there is no "I". The bid is on the table, and everyone, > > partner and opponents alike, must use their general bridge knowledge to > > decipher it. > > Not when the alert regulations stipulate the meaning of a > non-alerted call they don't have to decipher it. Of course they do. Read Eric's posts again. > But then again, I am no expert in ACBL alert regulations. > Marv told me the non-alerted double equalled a penalty > meaning, and I am going further on this. If you want to > argue with Marv about the non-alerted meaning of the double, > please do, but leave me out of that. > No, there is no question that the double was alertable *if the pair had an agreement to play it that way* > > In this case, the competitive nature of a low-level balancing > > double is almost completely universal, to the point where making the > > inference that it is penalty (and trying to get a ruling based on that, > > particularly against a first time partnership) > > would be bridge lawyering, except perhaps in the novice game. > > > > Be extrememly careful with words like universal, when your > bridge knowledge is confined to just one extremely > homogenous country. > And did Marv's partner share that universal knowledge ? No, > and that's all that matters. > No. What matters is if there was undisclosed discussion, experience etc between the pro and his partner. If so, there was MI. If not, tough luck. that if a pair satisfies the SO's disclosure regulations, there can be no violation of it. > > > > When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME. > > I have another good advice : > > When no alert is given, ASSUME, do not ASK. > > Assume all you want, just don't expect the TD to fix the problem when your assumptions are wrong. This discussion is getting very circular. I'm tired of repeating the same points, so I'm bowing out. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 17:13:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:13:37 +1100 (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 RAA01848 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:13:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-87-160.s160.tnt6.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.87.160]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA04660 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 01:13:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004a01bf24f9$4f5cc640$a057accf@hdavis> 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> <000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <381C024B.87084EDE@village.uunet.be> <006601bf23d1$0a6fcf60$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <03a901bf249f$885c17c0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 01:12:48 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 2:30 PM Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? > > Hirsch Davis wrote > > > Marv knew what was happening, even if > > his partner did not. Whether or not he should call the TD at the > > time he became aware of the possible infraction (even if it > > might result in giving information to partner) is a topic that > > relates to a concurrent thread. > > > Regardless, he should have summoned the TD at the end of the > > auction, since he was aware of the possible failure to alert, with > > no risk off UI to his partner. In this case, the TD would have > > ruled no MI and play would have continued. > > One cannot call the TD because of a possible failure to Alert. What > Law says to do that? > Marv, you *did* call the TD because of a possible failure to alert. Of course you can call a TD when there is a probable infraction. The ACBL regs that I posted indicate that you should do that. You don't have to, of course. However, the ACBL regs do warn that you might be waiving your right to redress if you don't. > > However, if MI had been present, his partner would have been > > able to take back her final pass and compete, if, as Marv claims, > > she was intimidated by MI. By waiting until dummy is down, > > Marv is taking a double shot. If 2S is a good spot for his side, > > there it plays. If it's a bad spot.."DIRECTOR!!!". He gets to > > play 2S, and have the auction adjusted to > > 3H if that turns out not to work. Bad move. Marv was aware of the > > possible infraction, but did not summon the TD at the proper time > > to protect his side. The ACBL regs make it very clear that Marv's > > inaction may well have mitigated his right to redress, even had > > MI been present. > > MI was present, but let that go. > > Read the regulation more carefully, please. It says I must ask to > protect myself when necessary, not that I must ask for partner's > benefit. > Agreed. I'm not suggesting you should ask anything. I am suggesting you should get the TD when there is a likely infraction. > The words are: > > --------> Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that > their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be > expected to protect themselves. > > "Themselves" refers to the asking players, not to their partners. As long as you don't share in the poor score your partner gets, you may be right. > You do not ask questions in order to protect partner, that is > illegal. I did not need protection for myself, so I did not ask. > I'm not suggesting you should have asked. I'm suggesting you should have summoned the TD. > Sure, we get the best of both worlds. That is what the Laws say. No > damage, no penalty; damage, apply L12C2. Let players properly > disclose what is going on or pay the price for failure to do so. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > Nope. Read L40B again. Disclosure is satisfied by meeting the regulations of the SO. And the ACBL regs place a responsibility on you as well as your opponents. If you let a failure to alert go by, you may be waiving your right to redress. You knew what was happening, but did nothing. I'll repeat this section from the ACBL regs: "Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation." In your case, by not calling the TD, you've left yourself open. Even if MI were present, the TD could rule against you when you try the double shot. If there were MI in the situation originally described, and 3H indeed only went down one for -100, that would be your opponents' score. However, since you were aware of the meaning of the double but did nothing to clarify the situation, you get to keep your -110. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 18:49:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:49:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from ultra.ultra.net.au (root@ultra.ultra.net.au [203.20.237.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01970 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:49:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (p050.supa1-tsv.ultra.net.au [202.80.71.50]) by ultra.ultra.net.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA15380 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:49:04 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991102180906.0081c6d0@mail.ultra.net.au> X-Sender: suelaing@mail.ultra.net.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 18:09:06 +1000 To: BLML From: Laurie Kelso Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: <065001bf24d5$57322000$fb095e18@san.rr.com> References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> <381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be> <000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <3.0.1.32.19991101171244.00728f20@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:55 1/11/99 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> At 09:48 AM 10/31/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >> >> >But you cannot expect a >> >player to ask about the meaning of a non-alert. That >> >meaning should be "standard" or we have no need whatsoever >> >of the alert procedure. >> >> Why on earth not? It happens all the time. You open 1S. No alert is >> given. At the end of the auction, the defender contemplating his lead >asks >> "did your 1S opening promise five spades?" Is there something wrong with >> this? Is Herman really suggesting that the only correct answer to such an >> inquiry is "1S is standard and I am not required to say anything further"? >> Around here people are hauled before C&E committees for giving such >> answers, and rightfully so. >> >I would refuse to answer the question at that time, and would call the TD >because of the UI conveyed by the question. For one thing, the answer is >plainly on the cc, or should be. I know this is an old issue with Marv, but I can't resist responding to the above. UI is always a potential problem, whatever the SO's procedures for disclosure might be. If you wish to, then by all means call the TD , but I can't see any justification for refusing to answer. Are not your special partnership agreements supposed to be "...fully and freely available to the opponents"? The presence of convention cards doesn't allow one to ignore requests for a verbal explanation, irrespective of whether the question or the answer might later present Law 16 difficulties. >For another, the correct question by the >opening leader is, "Please explain your auction." Questioners are supposed >to avoid reference to a particular call. I agree >Anyone asking a pointed question of this sort should be hauled before a C&E >committee. C&E committees have more important things to do. Half the bridge players on the planet are lax in the way they illicit information from their opponents. Using a sledge hammer is not the best way to educate them. Laurie Australia From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 19:03:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:03:40 +1100 (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 TAA01998 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:03:31 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA27635 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:02:53 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:02 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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: <$JKf1TAM$YH4EwHC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> > Even at club level I do not think players would wish you to > communicate with partner however high-minded your reason. Don't forget, > your reason may be pure: the next player who communicates with partner > will not be as pure. Ask two questions in your club 1. If an opponent becomes aware that you may have MI would you rather he try and clarify the situation immediately or say nothing and wait for a ruling. 2. Do you think opponents should be allowed to ask questions as mechanism for communicating with partner. I'd expect an overwhelming "the former" in response to Q1 and an even more overwhelming "no" to Q2. I'm not unhappy with ruling the question as making UI available so long as no one questions my ethics in asking and everyone accepts that the answer is AI. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 19:03:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:03:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01999 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:03:31 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA27645 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:02:54 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:02 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <031f01bf2497$e1694f20$fb095e18@san.rr.com> > Most people at the club level have little perception of the spirit of > the > game. > > The best people to consult on this subject are good players in fairly > high-stake money games in an open rubber bridge club. That is not > duplicate bridge, but the ethical considerations are no different. When > playing for a nickel a point, I doubt that the opponents would be > understanding when I question a call for the benefit of my pigeon > partner. Not sure how much a nickel is worth (5c?) but playing for 10p/point I wouldn't dream of asking for partner's benefit (while still believing it is legally permitted) and would be quite happy with a regulation that I shouldn't (doesn't come up much because so few conventions are permitted at money bridge in the clubs I frequent). When playing with my (novice) wife in a club duplicate/non-money game I want her to have as full as possible an understanding of what is going on. Thus I see "asking for partner's benefit" as a matter for regulation rather than a blanket law for all games. > They might just raise an eyebrow, but I would have difficulty getting > up a > game with them in the future. 99/100 times asking will protect opponents from an MI ruling rather than cost them - certainly in the "Kaplan story" I get the impression that both opponents were quite happy that he asked (I know it wasn't a serious money game though). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 20:50:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:50:42 +1100 (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 UAA02198 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:50:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:50:20 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA13738 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:35:09 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Subject: RE: Non-Random Deals Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:20:36 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >It is not bridge played in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Contract >Bridge, which require that deals be random, but it is nonetheless >"legitimate bridge" -- SOs can, and do, hold such "special contests" under >special sanction, but properly require that the special conditions be known >to the players in advance. > >It is entirely ethical, indeed appropriate, to use different methods for >what is, both legally and realistically, a different game from "ordinary >duplicate bridge". Such a game is, from a legal perspective, the same as a >par-hand contest. It *is* bridge in accordance with the Laws. Law 6 describes how a deal must be shuffled/dealt. It surely suggests that the preferred method of shuffling/dealing is random, but then says in 6E4 that the Director may choose a different method of shuffling/dealing. It is therefore legal bridge, although certainly not what we are accustomed to. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 20:50:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:50:45 +1100 (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 UAA02200 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:50:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:50:20 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA13743 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:39:36 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Subject: RE: Non-Random Deals Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:25:05 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >It is not bridge played in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Contract >Bridge, which require that deals be random, but it is nonetheless >"legitimate bridge" -- SOs can, and do, hold such "special contests" under >special sanction, but properly require that the special conditions be known >to the players in advance. > >It is entirely ethical, indeed appropriate, to use different methods for >what is, both legally and realistically, a different game from "ordinary >duplicate bridge". Such a game is, from a legal perspective, the same as a >par-hand contest. It *is* bridge in accordance with the Laws. Law 6 describes how a deal must be shuffled/dealt. It surely suggests that the preferred method of shuffling/dealing is random, but then says in 6E4 that the Director may choose a different method of shuffling/dealing. It is therefore legal bridge, although crteainly not what we are accustomed to. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 2 21:09:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 21:09:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02291 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 21:09:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-139.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.139]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07859 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:09:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <381DD08D.5D04AA9D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 18:40:29 +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: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991101113730.0073a828@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 01:15 PM 10/29/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >Non-alerting is equivalent to expaining the call as having > >the non-alertable meaning... > > No, no, no! "A non-alertable meaning", NOT "THE non-alertable meaning"! > OK, I grant you that one. Indeed in Belgium, both weak twos and strong twos need no longer be alerted. But that is not the same as the penalty/take-out question we were discussing. The double in question was for take-out, and I am just following Marv's indication that this is alertable in ACBL. > At least half of the confusion, hassle, pain and hard feelings engendered > by alert rules would go away if people simply understood this distinction. > No relevance whatsoever to our discussion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 00:55:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA02743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:55:39 +1100 (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 AAA02738 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:55:31 +1100 (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 IAA11097 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:56:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991102085656.006a56b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 08:56:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? In-Reply-To: <381DACA7.D59EAF30@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991101085347.00715850@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:07 PM 11/1/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> At 12:57 PM 10/28/99 +0200, Herman wrote: >> >> >The alert is just part of the explanation. >> >> Perhaps the entire debate is really about this simple statement. >How can that be under debate ? > >Let's get really nitty-gritty semantic here. > >"The alert is just part of the explanation." > >You say is false. > >So > >"The alert is not part of the explanation" > >must be true. > >Sorry, can't believe that. I believe it. If I use an obscure word in a communication, and add a note which reads "[you should look this up in a dictionary]", I do not believe that my note is part of the definition. I believe this is analogous. >Or are you discussing the word "just" ? > >"The alert is the whole of the explanation" > >No. > >So we don't debate any longer : > >The alert is just part of the explanation. > >Marv, for >> example, takes the position that given the exact alert regulations, the >> alert may in fact constitute the complete explanation. > >Marv has never stated that. Nor would he, I believe. >Marv and I are saying that a non-alert constitutes a >complete explanation. That is quite true, and what I intended to say; I apologize for having misspoken myself. It is precisely this point ("a non-alert constitutes a complete explanation") with which I was trying to express my strong disagreement. 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 Nov 3 01:44:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 01:03:43 +1100 (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 BAA02784 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 01:03:09 +1100 (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 JAA11828 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:03:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991102090432.00696228@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:04:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Hairsplitting? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991101103955.006c4c48@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:14 PM 11/1/99 -0500, Ed wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 10:39 AM -0500 11/1/99, Eric Landau wrote: >>After deliberation, we were called back to be informed of the AC's >>decision. The chairman told us that we would be allowed to get away with >>it this time, but should never do it again. We asked him to tell us >>exactly what it was that "we should never do again" -- was he really >>prohibiting us from having conversations about bidding theory in our living >>rooms? He told us to shut up and go home. > >This kind of thing makes me wonder about the sanity of appeals committees. :-) > >What did you do that got you to that committee? You alerted a putative >agreeement which the ACBL says is illegal. If the AC says "don't do it >again", I would think "it" must refer to the alert. So the next time the >situation comes up, you don't alert, and your defense must be that an AC >told you not to, in spite of your previous discussions. :-) OK, I confess. I told this story (not for the first time, by a long shot) because it's a good story. But the truth is that it happened nearly 30 years ago. I am quite confident that it would not happen today. 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 Nov 3 02:57:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 02:57:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@[204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA03433 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 02:57:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:57:11 -0800 Message-ID: <002a01bf254a$eda0a8c0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> <381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be> <000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <381C024B.87084EDE@village.uunet.be> <006601bf23d1$0a6fcf60$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <03a901bf249f$885c17c0$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <004a01bf24f9$4f5cc640$a057accf@hdavis> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:47:32 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marvin L. French > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 2:30 PM > Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? > > > > > > Hirsch Davis wrote > > > > > Marv knew what was happening, even if > > > his partner did not. Whether or not he should call the TD at the > > > time he became aware of the possible infraction (even if it > > > might result in giving information to partner) is a topic that > > > relates to a concurrent thread. > > > > > Regardless, he should have summoned the TD at the end of the > > > auction, since he was aware of the possible failure to alert, with > > > no risk off UI to his partner. In this case, the TD would have > > > ruled no MI and play would have continued. > > > > One cannot call the TD because of a possible failure to Alert. What > > Law says to do that? > > > > Marv, you *did* call the TD because of a possible failure to alert. I meant during the auction period. I called when I saw the dummy, not at the end of the auction. Won't comment on the rest, as I seem to be wasting too much time on this subject.. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 03:07:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA03481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 03:07:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@[204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA03476 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 03:07:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:07:26 -0800 Message-ID: <002b01bf254c$5c323640$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com><3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be><008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis><381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be><000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil><3.0.1.32.19991101171244.00728f20@pop.cais.com> <3.0.6.32.19991102180906.0081c6d0@mail.ultra.net.au> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:07:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Laurie Kelso wrote: > At 17:55 1/11/99 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> At 09:48 AM 10/31/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > >> > >> >But you cannot expect a > >> >player to ask about the meaning of a non-alert. That > >> >meaning should be "standard" or we have no need whatsoever > >> >of the alert procedure. > >> > >> Why on earth not? It happens all the time. You open 1S. No alert is > >> given. At the end of the auction, the defender contemplating his lead > >asks > >> "did your 1S opening promise five spades?" Is there something wrong with > >> this? Is Herman really suggesting that the only correct answer to such an > >> inquiry is "1S is standard and I am not required to say anything further"? > >> Around here people are hauled before C&E committees for giving such > >> answers, and rightfully so. > >> > >I would refuse to answer the question at that time, and would call the TD > >because of the UI conveyed by the question. For one thing, the answer is > >plainly on the cc, or should be. > > I know this is an old issue with Marv, but I can't resist responding to the > above. > > UI is always a potential problem, whatever the SO's procedures for > disclosure might be. If you wish to, then by all means call the TD , but I > can't see any justification for refusing to answer. Are not your special > partnership agreements supposed to be "...fully and freely available to the > opponents"? "At that time," Laurie. My partnership agreements are fully and freely available in accordance with the Laws and ACBL regulations. If someone violates either of those in order to gain information, I call the TD and do what s/he says to do (provided it's legal).. > > The presence of convention cards doesn't allow one to ignore requests for a > verbal explanation, irrespective of whether the question or the answer > might later present Law 16 difficulties. > I didn't say I would ignore such a request. These constant misquotations are starting to bug me. I made a strong jump overcall once (before Alerts were mandated for those), my partner bid something, as did the vulnerable opening bidder. I bid once more, and now LHO, with a bust hand, wanted to know all about my original overcall, the nature of which was clearly shown on the cc. Just as clear was that he wanted to make sure his partner knew that I was strong, so that he would shut up. Of course, others are defending that sort of thing, which I consider to be blatant cheating. > >For another, the correct question by the > >opening leader is, "Please explain your auction." Questioners are supposed > >to avoid reference to a particular call. > > I agree > > >Anyone asking a pointed question of this sort should be hauled before a C&E > >committee. > > C&E committees have more important things to do. Half the bridge players > on the planet are lax in the way they illicit information from their > opponents. Using a sledge hammer is not the best way to educate them. > I was aping Eric's language, who wrote that I should be hauled before a C&E committee for questioning the right of a person to ask a pointed question about a single call in the auction. Both C&E references, his and mine, were non-serious hyperbole. At least, mine was, maybe he was serious. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 03:33:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA03558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 03:33:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@[204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA03553 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 03:33:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:33:33 -0800 Message-ID: <003f01bf2550$022edbe0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" References: Subject: Re: Non-Random Deals Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:33:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: Martin Sinot > Eric Landau wrote: > > >It is not bridge played in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Contract > >Bridge, which require that deals be random, but it is nonetheless > >"legitimate bridge" -- SOs can, and do, hold such "special contests" under > >special sanction, but properly require that the special conditions be known > >to the players in advance. > > > >It is entirely ethical, indeed appropriate, to use different methods for > >what is, both legally and realistically, a different game from "ordinary > >duplicate bridge". Such a game is, from a legal perspective, the same as a > >par-hand contest. > > It *is* bridge in accordance with the Laws. Law 6 describes how a deal > must be shuffled/dealt. It surely suggests that the preferred method of > shuffling/dealing is random, but then says in 6E4 that the Director may > choose a different method of shuffling/dealing. It is therefore legal > bridge, although certainly not what we are accustomed to. > We all should be more careful to quote Laws when referring to them. L6E4: The Director may require a different method of dealing/predealing. Nothing about shuffling, which I take to mean randomizing. I interpret L6E4 as permitting computer dealing, augmented by possible duplication of hands by the players. Randomization is still assumed. The game of duplicate bridge, as described in the Laws, is played with random deals from a standard 52-card pack. When deals are not random, or we play with a 5-suit pack, another version of the game is being played. Nothing wrong with that, but please, ACBL, don't issue masterpoint awards for such games. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 03:57:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA03592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 03:57:31 +1100 (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 DAA03587 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 03:57:11 +1100 (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 RAA21533 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:59:36 +0100 Message-ID: <381F17E7.ED61FE2C@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 17:57:11 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Irrational or Careless ?(New) References: <01bf23f6$573ff700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:19:12 -0000, "Anne Jones" > wrote: > > >Without the comment from East, I am sure I would have ruled that > >to play a trump would not be "normal" play for a player of this > >standard. > > Surely it would be "normal" for a player who is convinced that he > will get only one trick? Taking the jack immediately is very > much consistent with his claim statement. > > I would rule one trick to EW. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). I think this is not what Anne meant. Had West just put his cards on the table without any comment then she would have ruled that playing a trump would be (would have been? Help!) irrational for a player of the international standard and only the West's words convinced her not to do so. Am I right, Anne? -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Nov 3 04:24:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 04:24:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@[204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03695 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 04:24:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:24:23 -0800 Message-ID: <005e01bf2557$1c33c300$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991101085347.00715850@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991102085656.006a56b0@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:15:46 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 04:07 PM 11/1/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > >> > >> At 12:57 PM 10/28/99 +0200, Herman wrote: > >> > >> >The alert is just part of the explanation. > >> > >> Perhaps the entire debate is really about this simple statement. > >How can that be under debate ? > > > >Let's get really nitty-gritty semantic here. > > > >"The alert is just part of the explanation." > > > >You say is false. > > > >So > > > >"The alert is not part of the explanation" > > > >must be true. > > > >Sorry, can't believe that. > > I believe it. If I use an obscure word in a communication, and add a note > which reads "[you should look this up in a dictionary]", I do not believe > that my note is part of the definition. I believe this is analogous. > > >Or are you discussing the word "just" ? > > > >"The alert is the whole of the explanation" > > > >No. > > > >So we don't debate any longer : > > > >The alert is just part of the explanation. > > > >Marv, for > >> example, takes the position that given the exact alert regulations, the > >> alert may in fact constitute the complete explanation. > > > >Marv has never stated that. Nor would he, I believe. > >Marv and I are saying that a non-alert constitutes a > >complete explanation. > Not quite right, Herman, although usually true in the cases of penalty vs non-penalty doubles. As I wrote elsewhere, in the auction 1S-2C-Dbl, the lack of an Alert for the double constitutes a complete explanation of it: negative double, implying four hearts. Nobody in ACBL-land would suppose that this double should be questioned, just in case it might be for penalty. And if it turns out to be a penalty double, or is part of the "negative free bid" approach, saying nothing about hearts, which must be Alerted, any resultant damage will surely be redressed by the TD/AC. They will not say, "You could have asked." Similarly, 1NT-2H-Dbl is fully described as a penalty double if there is no Alert. If it turns out to be a negative double, there will be redress for any damage. Now, it is unfortunately true that the ACBL rules for Alerting doubles are not entirely clear to everyone, due to some unclear language in the ACBL Alert Procedure. In some situations, when I have a need to know, I will certainly ask about the meaning of a double. But I will not ask for partner's benefit. I have submitted some recommendations to the Competitions and Conventions (C&C) committee, an advisory body for the ACBL Board of Directors, for consideration at the Boston NABC later this month. My aim was to make the Alert rules simpler, so that players will more often know what a call means when it is not Alerted. I will now forward a copy of that message to BLML. Actually the whole Alert Procedure should be redone from top to bottom, but that is not going go happen. (And I would not know how to do that anyway) Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 04:24:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 04:24:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@[204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03697 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 04:24:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:24:26 -0800 Message-ID: <005f01bf2557$1e222580$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Fw: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:23:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 BLMLers might be interested in the following. C&C stands for Competitions and Conventions, an advisory committee for the ACBL Board of Directors.: From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 11:49 AM > > > Hi Gary, > > > > As Rich Colker recently suggested, I am forwarding a few suggestions > > for consideration by the C&C Committee in Boston. > > > > The current Alert Procedure (AP) is much too complicated for most > > players, and even for most tournament directors. I would like to > > suggest that emphasis be placed on the creation of simple rules that > > have few exceptions. If this means that some "expected" meanings > > will have to be Alerted, that doesn't do any harm, although meanings > > that are nearly universal among players at all levels can certainly > > be the subject of an exception. Here are some suggested rules that > > accord with this philosophy. > > > > 1. Alert all non-penalty doubles when partner has previously acted, > > with the exception of ordinary negative doubles. [These are defined by the current Alert Procedure -- mlf] > > > > 2. After one's side has bid notrump, alert all non-penalty doubles. > > No exceptions. > > > > 3. When responding or rebidding, Alert possible bypasses of a major > > suit that could be shown at the one level. No exceptions. Currently > > 1C=1D=2C bypassing a major is not Alertable, nor is 1H=1NT bypassing > > four spades, nor is 1C=1H=1NT bypassing four spades. Opener's rebid > > of 1NT that could bypass a major is Alertable, but not a 2NT (or > > 3NT?) rebid. That's too complicated. > > > > 4. Alert one-over-one responses that promise at least five cards in > > the suit. No exceptions. Currently 1H=1S promising five is not > > Alertable. > > > > 5. Require that any semi-forcing 1NT response be Announced > > (currently not Announceable if made by a passed hand). No > > exceptions. Alternatively, do not require the Announcement of > > semi-forcing 1NT responses, since it is standard practice to pass > > 1NT only with a balanced minimum. > > 6. Alert all non-penalty doubles of notrump bids. No exceptions. > > > At the other end of the spectrum, one highly unusual call is not > > currently Alertable. I suggest: > > > > -- Alert all natural two-level strong two bids. > > > > The Alertablilty of 4NT bids is way too complicated. Simplification > > is a must. > > > > I am also in favor of increasing the number of Announceable bids, > > but have no specific recommendations. Announcements save time and > > avoid the problem of selective questioning (based on HCP or holding > > in the suit) when a bid is Alerted. > > > > Finally, I would like to see the concept of "self-alerting calls" be > > eliminated. The AP applies to all players in sectional and higher > > games, and most club games, but many of those participating in these > > games have no knowledge of what constitutes a "self-alerting" call. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 04:59:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 04:59:24 +1100 (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 EAA03809 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 04:59:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from p6bs05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.108] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11iiCt-0001Na-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:58:55 -0800 Message-ID: <002001bf255b$ca6dac20$6c8593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:56:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 October 1999 14:49 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 ~ +=+ > >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." > >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. > +=+ That, however, is my view. It is based upon the fact that I consulted Edgar before I wrote in 1991/92 in the EBL Commentary on the (1987) Laws: "It is not that players deliberately seek to pass information - indeed to do so deliberately by an illicit means (such as asking a question to attract partner's attention to the meaning of an opponent's bid, or a deliberate hesitation in the play to indicate possession of a card) is as highly improper as it would be to pass some remark or adopt some mannerism in calling or playing with the intention of misleading an opponent. ....etc." The intention of 'through' had been previously discussed and I went back to it with him. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 05:00:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:00:24 +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 FAA03823 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:00:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-28.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.28]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA16972 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:58:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <381EC013.880108E3@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 11:42:27 +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: <3.0.1.32.19991028085808.0071cdf0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.3.32.19991028023048.007efde0@pop.ihug.co.nz> <000701bf20a1$f4db4ee0$a9e6abc3@davidburn> <3.0.1.32.19991028085808.0071cdf0@pop.cais.com> <1pFW+6Ap6FG4Ew8u@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991101094308.0072e3dc@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As usual, David made some excellent points, and I agree with them. As usual also, I have one comment. David Stevenson wrote: > > > This whole thread is about what the TD should do if he is unconvinced > that the player knew what he was doing. I believe to play 9 or 5 before > the knave is careless, and my evidence for that is that it is done at my > table by people who think all the cards are good. > What evidence can you have for that ? People who think all the cards are good, and are certain of it, claim, they don't play. So you don't have evidence for that. People who think that all the cards are good, but are not 100% certain, play one more round, from the top. No-one deliberately plays them from the bottom up. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 05:34:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:34:00 +1100 (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 FAA03931 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:33:51 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11137 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:33:39 +0100 Received: from ip40.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.40), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdc11130; Tue Nov 2 19:33:34 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Asking for Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 19:33:33 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <6ysfOOZttkaV1BJPMX4rYlN1vDqr@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <05ee01bf24d3$5d659120$fb095e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <05ee01bf24d3$5d659120$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 FAA03932 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:40:57 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >When >playing for a nickel a point, I doubt that the opponents would be >understanding when I question a call for the benefit of my pigeon partner. >They might just raise an eyebrow, but I would have difficulty getting up a >game with them in the future. The current situation is that there is a widespread practice of considering asking for partner's benefit illegal, and this practice is backed up by an official WBFLC statement. Therefore your opponents have every reason to raise an eyebrow (or call the TD if there is one). So would I. But that is not really relevant to a discussion about how the laws ideally ought to be (a) written and (b) interpreted. If the WBFLC should happen to be convinced by Mike's arguments and change their official interpretation to the opposite one, then there would be no reason at all to raise an eyebrow. I think the game would be better with such a change: it would have disadvantages and advantages, and I personally believe the advantages would be greatest (though probably not at the highest levels; but only a small part of this world's bridge games are at the highest levels). -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 05:44:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:01:26 +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 FAA03846 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:01:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-28.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.28]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA17099 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:59:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <381EC75C.995413C7@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 12:13:32 +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: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19991029085537.00691620@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991101164400.00725f60@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > [well, in short, that a non-alerted call can still have more than one meaning] I agree with that statement, and never wanted to say anything else. I was simplifying in a case were only two meanings were under discussion, one of which was alertable. The non-alert must in that case imply the non-alertable meaning. In general, a non-alert must imply a non-alertable meaning, not an "i'm not certain, but I'm taking it for a meaning whihc would be alertable" -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 05:56:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:56:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe6.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA04039 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:55:50 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 274 invoked by uid 65534); 2 Nov 1999 18:55:09 -0000 Message-ID: <19991102185509.273.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.164.87] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <005f01bf2557$1e222580$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:54:49 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 might suggest that an appropriate alert procedure would be one based upon a specification that the beginning player should not have to even know of the existence of an AP in order to comply. In other words, it is the use of artificial means that conveys a duty on its user, not his presence in the event. The expectation that the novice must have the same knowledge as the master in order to comply is a large source of disenchantment with tournament. I should think that if all players were made to realize that the declaring side must recount all information passed before the opening lead that 70% of all questions during the auction would disappear, that defenders will defend as best they can, and the declaring side will become more skillful in their bidding, not to mention that disclosure in the future will tend to reach toward the desired expectation. And did I include that MI will tend to be uncovered expeditiously that a fair result might better be obtained? Such is not the state of the world nor its inclination, but it may be worthwhile considering. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 11:23 AM Subject: Fw: Suggestions for Alert Procedure > BLMLers might be interested in the following. C&C stands for Competitions > and Conventions, an advisory committee for the ACBL Board of Directors.: > > From: Marvin L. French > To: > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 11:49 AM > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > > As Rich Colker recently suggested, I am forwarding a few suggestions > > > for consideration by the C&C Committee in Boston. > > > > > > The current Alert Procedure (AP) is much too complicated for most > > > players, and even for most tournament directors. I would like to > > > suggest that emphasis be placed on the creation of simple rules that > > > have few exceptions. If this means that some "expected" meanings > > > will have to be Alerted, that doesn't do any harm, although meanings > > > that are nearly universal among players at all levels can certainly > > > be the subject of an exception. Here are some suggested rules that > > > accord with this philosophy. > > > > > > 1. Alert all non-penalty doubles when partner has previously acted, > > > with the exception of ordinary negative doubles. > > [These are defined by the current Alert Procedure -- mlf] > > > > > > > 2. After one's side has bid notrump, alert all non-penalty doubles. > > > No exceptions. > > > > > > 3. When responding or rebidding, Alert possible bypasses of a major > > > suit that could be shown at the one level. No exceptions. Currently > > > 1C=1D=2C bypassing a major is not Alertable, nor is 1H=1NT bypassing > > > four spades, nor is 1C=1H=1NT bypassing four spades. Opener's rebid > > > of 1NT that could bypass a major is Alertable, but not a 2NT (or > > > 3NT?) rebid. That's too complicated. > > > > > > 4. Alert one-over-one responses that promise at least five cards in > > > the suit. No exceptions. Currently 1H=1S promising five is not > > > Alertable. > > > > > > 5. Require that any semi-forcing 1NT response be Announced > > > (currently not Announceable if made by a passed hand). No > > > exceptions. Alternatively, do not require the Announcement of > > > semi-forcing 1NT responses, since it is standard practice to pass > > > 1NT only with a balanced minimum. > > > > 6. Alert all non-penalty doubles of notrump bids. No exceptions. > > > > > At the other end of the spectrum, one highly unusual call is not > > > currently Alertable. I suggest: > > > > > > -- Alert all natural two-level strong two bids. > > > > > > The Alertablilty of 4NT bids is way too complicated. Simplification > > > is a must. > > > > > > I am also in favor of increasing the number of Announceable bids, > > > but have no specific recommendations. Announcements save time and > > > avoid the problem of selective questioning (based on HCP or holding > > > in the suit) when a bid is Alerted. > > > > > > Finally, I would like to see the concept of "self-alerting calls" be > > > eliminated. The AP applies to all players in sectional and higher > > > games, and most club games, but many of those participating in these > > > games have no knowledge of what constitutes a "self-alerting" call. > > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 07:10:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA04260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:10:37 +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 HAA04255 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:10:28 +1100 (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 PAA05342 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:10:25 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199911012345.SAA21637@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:03:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:45 PM -0500 11/1/99, Steve Willner wrote: >> I'm a bit rattled like you get when someone asks you to define and >>pronounce >> the English word "bow." Without a context, the exercise is ridiculous. >Yes, this is a good idea. Could you give us an example of when you >would give a L73B1 penalty or adjusted score (and which?) for a "pro >question?" Of course the pro will insist that the question was >strictly for his own benefit, and the client will insist that if the >pro hadn't asked, he would have asked the same question himself at his >own turn. What facts will you look for to determine otherwise? There are many cases in which ethics and Laws demand something which cannot be enforced; players are expected to obey them anyway. For example, suppose you hold Kxxx xx QJxx xxx. Partner opens 2NT, and you bid 3C, intended as Stayman. Partner alerts, and explains to the opponents that your bid is Puppet Stayman, then bids 3D; playing Puppet, this shows rather than denying a four-card major. You would have bid 3C playing Puppet, and could thus use the UI to recover by bidding the correct 3H. There is no way anyone can impose a penalty unless you admit that you used the UI. However, the Laws still require you to bid 3NT. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 07:15:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:01:01 +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 FAA03837 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:00:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-28.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.28]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA17045 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:59:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <381EC61B.ECF804E6@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 12:08:11 +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: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <04b901bf20a7$e4e98640$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <3818291A.814D28F6@village.uunet.be> <008b01bf21c8$9ff3e400$20cc7ad1@hdavis> <381981D7.7D08044B@village.uunet.be> <000901bf2235$1d955440$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <381C024B.87084EDE@village.uunet.be> <006601bf23d1$0a6fcf60$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <381DAB5E.1C942881@village.uunet.be> <003b01bf24f6$3457fe80$a057accf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 10:01 AM > Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? > > > Hello Hirsh, list, > > > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > You and I have different views on what an agreement is. > > You seem to believe that for something to be an agreement, > > one has to have proof that the partners agreed to it > > beforehand. > > No. I believe that there must have been partnership discussion or > experience for there to be an agreement. If I am making a ruling, I do not > automatically assume either agreement or no agreement. I investigate the > facts, and make the best determination I can. If I believe that there was > partnership information that was not revealed to the opponents, I rule > against the offenders under L40B. However, I also recognize that 1) > established partnerships have more agreements than first time partnerships > and 2) no partnership in the world has an agreement for every situation that > can occur at the bridge table. > Absolutely as I do. > > I believe that if it quacks like a duck ... > > If a player makes an undiscussed call, and his partner takes it as the most > common meaning of that call, that does not necessarily mean that they have > an agreement. If it's a common situation and the pair is experienced, then > the burden of proof falls on them to show there was not an agreement, and I > will rule against them more often than not. If it's a new partnership, I > won't try to hold them to the same level of partnership agreements as the > established pair. If it quacks like a duck, I will check to see if it's a > duck, but I won't assume it's a duck. > Absolutely as I do. > > When two players are on the same wavelength, I don't allow > > them to prove that they had not "agreed" to this. So I rule > > there was an agreement. > > If there indeed was one, great. However, I prefer a deeper investigation > rather than ruling by rote. Your style does not permit a new partnership to > land on its feet. Ever. If they do, there was an agreement and you rule > against them. I don't know the name of the game you direct, but it's not > bridge. > I thought we were getting somewhere here, Hirsh. Now you've lost me somewhat again. My point is that if they land on their feet, why not also inform the opponents of this ? If they land on their feet in meaning A, and they have informed their opponents it was meaning A, I don't have to rule against them. But if they land on their feet in meaning A, and they have informed their opponents it was meaning B, do you really want to rule FOR them ? The point we started from was that they informed "no agreement, probably A". The dWs ruling is that we rule MI if all they say is "no agreement", when we don't believe them. The dWs advice is that they should better say "A". But this is a case where they informed "meaning B" (if we agree with Marv that non-alert equals this). Surely that is not OK. > > And ergo MI if that "meaning" was not disclosed. > > How else do you wish to rule ? > > > > Since I don't automatically grant your premise of MI, the question is > meaningless. > > > > > Now you confound the issue triplefold. > > > > > > > > You allow a player to omit an alert, and accept that this is > > > > equivalent to "We have no agreement, but if pressed, I will > > > > explain it as take-out". When the non-alert, from someone > > > > who know his system, is equivalent (by the ACBL regulation) > > > > to "penalty". > > > > > > > > > > No, if pressed the player should stick to his explanation of "no > agreement". > > > > Which is what the discussion started with. > > Which is an incomplete statement, since they are on the same > > wavelength. > > No. It is MI if they have an agreement, partnership experience, or other > partnership discussion they have not disclosed to the opponents. If they > get an undiscussed situation correct without discussion, the statement was > complete. > Hirsh, at the start of this mail you admitted that you could be persuaded in certain circumstances to rule it is a duck if it quacks like one. All I am saying is that this might be such a case. We really cannot continue with this endless discussion if you continue to argue that this is not a duck. We gather the facts, and we (both of us) decide that it is a duck. We read the regulations and we (both of us) decide that the non-alert means that it is descrived as a goose. We rule MI (both of us ?) > Players are not required to disclose their intentions. They are required to > disclose *agreed* meaning of bids only. Note that if they get an > undiscussed situation correct, they have probably established an implicit > agreement that would have to be disclosed in the future. Not, however, the > first time the partnership experienced it. > Do you really believe that in all cases ? Do you really rule like that when a pair say "honestly, that is the first time any of us have seen the auction 1NT-(2Di) before" ? > > We are discussing that a complete statement (barring a > > partner from Inner Mongolia) would be "we have not discussed > > this, but where we come from, this generally shows ...". > > > > This explanation is gratuitous and unnecessary. If there is an agreement, > it must be disclosed in full. If there is no agreement, that ends the > explanation. > Any non-agreement is based upon a set of conditions that both players know better than their opponents. The opponents should at least be informed of this. > > If that meaning is alertable then the call should have been > > alerted. > > > > No! You do not alert a call because other players in your club play it that > way. You alert it because that is the way you play it with your partner. > If you don't know how this partner plays it, but are making a guess, there > can be no alert. > Sorry, that is impossible. When you don't alert, you are informing your opponents this is meaning "A", not "we have not discussed this", and certainly not "we have not discussed this, but I am pretty certain it is meaning B". > > You cannot expect the opponents to distinguish between : > > non-alert = "meaning A" (by regulation or common practice) > > AND > > non-alert = "we have not discussed this, but we probably are > > meaning B" > > > > The sentence above should stop at "we have not discussed this", and yes, a > non-alert can mean that, as well as showing a range of treatments that fall > under "non-alertable" in the SO's regs. If it gets as far as "we are > probably meaning b", then there is more likely to have been discussion. I believe Marv's case fell in that category ! > > > Let's try and distinguish the different problems here, but > > this one I feel very strongly about. non-alert = 1 standard > > meaning, nothing else. > > Every other meaning, and non-alert = MI. > > > > This is wrong. Eric is doing a far better job of indicating this than I. > > > > Any speculation he made to the nature of his partner's call would be > more of > > > a general bridge lesson to his opponents, not an explanation of an > agreement > > > at all. > > > > > > > Sorry, but I seem to recall that in the case Marv specified, > > the opponent was not at all in the know about this "general > > bridge lesson". > > So? She got it wrong. She had the same information about the partnership's > agreements as everyone else. That doesn't mean that she must come up with > the same conclusion. Disclosure ends when the opponents have the same > information available to them that the player does (including information > that the player may have forgotten). > Well, in Marv's case that was simply not true. > > Remember the wording of L40B "reasonably expected to > > understand". > > Also remember the words "special partnership agreement". > > > This is quite another point altogether, but I don't believe > > we are in disagreement about this. > > > > > > > IMO the answer is yes. The pro and his partner considered > > the double to be take-out, Marv's partner, through the > > non-alert, considered it to be penalties. So the pro had > > information that Marv's partner had not. > > > > No, the pro reached a different conclusion than Marv's partner on the same > information. > What information ? Pro : general bridge knowledge and knowledge of partner. Marv's partner : non-alert. Not the same information !!!!!! > > > There was no agreement, and in the absence of an agreement the alert > > > procedure cannot apply. The alert procedure is there to insure > disclosure > > > of agreements, not to force the opponents to give bridge lessons. Marv > had > > > the same information the pro did (and reached the same conclusion). His > > > partner reached a different conclusion. > > > > Because he was not as good a player, and the pro should have > > considered that. "reasonably be expected to know", OK ? > > Now if your ruling in this case is based on the fact that > > the pro did nothing wrong in reasonably expecting, then your > > ruling may turn out to be correct, but that is not what we > > are discussing here, OK ? > > > > This case is getting more complex by the minute, no matter > > how many times I try to cut away unnecessary side branches. > > > > You haven't cut away any branches. You keep misunderstanding simple > distinctions. > > > > That's the rub of the green. As long as nothing was concealed, and a > first > > > time partnership doesn't usually have all that much to conceal (I'm > > > hammering on this first-time partnership point a lot because it is > critical. > > > > First-time does not equal "no agreements". > > > > > I rule differently with an established partnership), there is no MI. > For > > > that matter, there is no "I". The bid is on the table, and everyone, > > > partner and opponents alike, must use their general bridge knowledge to > > > decipher it. > > > > Not when the alert regulations stipulate the meaning of a > > non-alerted call they don't have to decipher it. > > Of course they do. Read Eric's posts again. > > > But then again, I am no expert in ACBL alert regulations. > > Marv told me the non-alerted double equalled a penalty > > meaning, and I am going further on this. If you want to > > argue with Marv about the non-alerted meaning of the double, > > please do, but leave me out of that. > > > > No, there is no question that the double was alertable *if the pair had an > agreement to play it that way* > And we have just ruled that they have that agreement (in our hypothetical mode, remember). What are we discussing here, Hirsh ? - the ACBL regulation "non-alert equals penalty" - the agreement "it is take-out" or - that you are allowed to leave the opponents in the dark if your agreement is not rock solid. As long as you want to argue the first, talk to Marv. The second is up to the director, who should rule if it is a duck. The third is between us, but let's keep it to that one alone. > > > In this case, the competitive nature of a low-level balancing > > > double is almost completely universal, to the point where making the > > > inference that it is penalty (and trying to get a ruling based on that, > > > particularly against a first time partnership) > > > would be bridge lawyering, except perhaps in the novice game. > > > > > > > Be extrememly careful with words like universal, when your > > bridge knowledge is confined to just one extremely > > homogenous country. > > And did Marv's partner share that universal knowledge ? No, > > and that's all that matters. > > > > No. What matters is if there was undisclosed discussion, experience etc > between the pro and his partner. If so, there was MI. If not, tough luck. > > that if a pair satisfies the SO's disclosure regulations, there can be no > violation of it. > > > > > > > When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME. > > > > I have another good advice : > > > > When no alert is given, ASSUME, do not ASK. > > > > > > Assume all you want, just don't expect the TD to fix the problem when your > assumptions are wrong. > Marv's partner's assumptions were RIGHT !!!!! (or at least that's what Marv tells me the ACBL regulations tell) > This discussion is getting very circular. I'm tired of repeating the same > points, so I'm bowing out. > > Hirsch So am I. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 07:55:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA04400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:55:19 +1100 (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 HAA04395 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:55:09 +1100 (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 PAA29803 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:50:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA26445 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:39:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:39:54 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199911022039.PAA26445@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: ZDPYMkfmxX843FBdGMobbw== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > +=+ That, however, is my view. It is based upon > the fact that I consulted Edgar before I wrote in > 1991/92 in the EBL Commentary on the (1987) > Laws: "It is not that players deliberately seek > to pass information - indeed to do so deliberately > by an illicit means (such as asking a question to > attract partner's attention to the meaning of an > opponent's bid, or a deliberate hesitation in the > play to indicate possession of a card) is as highly > improper as it would be to pass some remark or > adopt some mannerism in calling or playing with > the intention of misleading an opponent. ....etc." > The intention of 'through' had been previously > discussed and I went back to it with him. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Somehow "attracting partner's attention to the meaning of a bid" carries a suggestion that one is attempting to draw partner's attention to that *particular* bid and its meaning for nefarious reasons (e.g., RHO opens 1C, which could be a 2-card suit, and one asks "How many clubs does that show?" because partner has a tendency to forget that a 2C overcall is now natural). I'm sure we all agree this is highly improper. But the kind of questioning that has been defended is different, in that one is merely trying to ensure that partner is generally well-informed, and not passing the message "That bid means ..., *and so you'd better ...*" Is it possible that Kaplan read a distinction like this (which you didn't intend) into your words? If so, it might explain what (to me) is a puzzling apparent inconsistency in Kaplan's position. [Of course, he may have changed his mind after writing the Bridge World editorial: that's not a source of puzzlement. But if he did so, then it is extremely puzzling that he then thought the wording of L73B1 was adequate: if he himself could publicly "misinterpret" it, then surely it needed to be made less ambiguous.] Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 11:25:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:25:44 +1100 (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 LAA04820 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:25:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from p62s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.99] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ioEd-00083N-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:25:08 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Irrational or Careless ?(New) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:56:09 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf258d$d5738f40$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: BLML Date: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 5:09 PM Subject: Re: Irrational or Careless ?(New) >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:19:12 -0000, "Anne Jones" >> wrote: >> >> >Without the comment from East, I am sure I would have ruled that >> >to play a trump would not be "normal" play for a player of this >> >standard. >> >> Surely it would be "normal" for a player who is convinced that he >> will get only one trick? Taking the jack immediately is very >> much consistent with his claim statement. >> >> I would rule one trick to EW. >> -- >> Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . >> http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > > > I think this is not what Anne meant. >Had West just put his cards on the table >without any comment then she would have ruled >that playing a trump would be (would have been? Help!) >irrational for a player of the international >standard and only the West's words convinced her >not to do so. Am I right, Anne? Certainly. West did make it plain that he intended playing a trump. His partner was the one who told him of a superior line of play. I ruled as L68B, and applied L16 with regard to the UI. West thought that to play a trump was not a LA. I ruled that East had made it a LA for him, as he had already said that was what he was going to do. E/W 1 trick, N/S 3 tricks. Everyone happy but East undoubtedly embarrassed. Anne > > > >-- >*********************************************************************** > > > - 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 Nov 3 13:13:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:13:38 +1100 (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 NAA05097 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:13:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.51] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ipvM-0008D4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 02:13:20 +0000 Message-ID: <006401bf25a0$f978c5a0$335208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 22:44:45 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 November 1999 04:54 Subject: Re: careless v irrational > > This whole thread is about what the TD should do if he is unconvinced >that the player knew what he was doing. I believe to play 9 or 5 before >the knave is careless, and my evidence for that is that it is done at my >table by people who think all the cards are good. > +=+ I understood the player believed all the cards in the suit were equally good? And if this is his belief I am amazed that anyone can suggest it is irrational ('wholly illogical, absurd') to play any one of them. What is more I consider the action inferior whether or not careless; either way it is 'normal' (sic). And this goes for playing 2 from AK2 as well if he believes there are no more out. The action is inferior because it fails to guard against error, but if a card is believed good it is can hardly be irrational to seek to cash it. [There is no guidance given to WBF Directors] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 13:13:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:13:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05110 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:13:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.51] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ipvP-0008D4-00; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 02:13:23 +0000 Message-ID: <006601bf25a0$faf1aa00$335208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 01:31:49 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Grattan Endicott ; Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: 29 October 1999 11:38 Subject: Re: careless v irrational >Grattan wrote: >>Can anyone sum up for my notebook? > >This may help. Apologies to anyone I've misquoted: > +=+ Thanks. ~#G#~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 13:13:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:13:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05108 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:13:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.51] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ipvL-0008D4-00; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 02:13:19 +0000 Message-ID: <006301bf25a0$f8e1b5c0$335208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ron Johnson" , Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 22:12:33 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 November 1999 15:50 Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? > >And to my knowledge never publicly altered that stance. At least he >never said so in a BW editorial. > +=+ His BW editorials could sometimes be a public defence of actions that were at best questionable. I would have been surprised had he commented on this situation again in BW in the light of discussions later. Let us just say his mind was changed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 13:13:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:13:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05100 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:13:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.51] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ipvN-0008D4-00; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 02:13:22 +0000 Message-ID: <006501bf25a0$fa390860$335208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 22:51:26 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: 02 November 1999 18:24 Subject: Re: careless v irrational > >People who think all the cards are good, and are certain of >it, claim, they don't play. >So you don't have evidence for that. >People who think that all the cards are good, but are not >100% certain, play one more round, from the top. >No-one deliberately plays them from the bottom up. > +=+ Irrelevant. We are not talking about what people "do" habitually, we are talking about what it would be irrational for them to do if they did it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 14:10:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA05421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:10:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05414 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:10:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP082.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.170]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23332 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:10:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991102210426.009df620@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 21:08:08 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For those who haven't noticed, the ACBL has put the 1998 Summer NABC casebook, _Looped in Chicago_, on its Web site in the members-only section. It is accessible from the main page, at www.acbl.org. Other casebooks are to follow, it says. The entire book is on one page, and it can take a while to load. I find it worth the effort, although I still intend to buy a print copy when I'm in Boston this month. 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 Nov 3 15:25:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:25:37 +1100 (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 PAA05605 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:25:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh4k.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.148]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA29854 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:25:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991102171858.013138c0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 17:18:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking for Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <6ysfOOZttkaV1BJPMX4rYlN1vDqr@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <05ee01bf24d3$5d659120$fb095e18@san.rr.com> <05ee01bf24d3$5d659120$fb095e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:33 PM 11/2/99 +0100, Jesper wrote: >If the WBFLC should happen to be convinced by Mike's arguments >and change their official interpretation to the opposite one, >then there would be no reason at all to raise an eyebrow. There might, however, be a good reason to check on the weather reports from the Underworld. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 17:25:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:25:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu (agomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06054 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:25:45 +1100 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by agomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id 11itqx-0000IL-00; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:25:04 +0100 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:32:03 +0100 (MET DST) To: Subject: Should we consider it a revoke? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear All I would really appreciate your comments on the following case happened in Hungary recently. Contract is 4 Spades. Declarer won the opening lead on dummy and leads the Q of Spades. Next opponent having the AJxx in Spades intends to win the trick with the Ace of Spades but inadvertantly plays a diamond. The other players play spades, the trick is quitted. Now the player (who played the diamond) plays a spade as he was convinced he played the Ace of trumps to the trick. Director please ! Thanks. Martaandras@uze.net Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 19:22:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:22:22 +1100 (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 TAA06438 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:22:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA12909; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:22:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JHW93YTZ94004BPG@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:15:57 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:22:06 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:21:35 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: careless v irrational To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C288@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > > > This whole thread is about what the TD should do if he is > unconvinced > >that the player knew what he was doing. I believe to play 9 > or 5 before > >the knave is careless, and my evidence for that is that it > is done at my > >table by people who think all the cards are good. > > > +=+ I understood the player believed all the > cards in the suit were equally good? And if > this is his belief I am amazed that anyone > can suggest it is irrational ('wholly illogical, > absurd') to play any one of them. What is > more I consider the action inferior whether > or not careless; either way it is 'normal' (sic). > And this goes for playing 2 from AK2 as well > if he believes there are no more out. The > action is inferior because it fails to guard > against error, but if a card is believed good > it is can hardly be irrational to seek to cash > it. [There is no guidance given to WBF > Directors] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > May be not to WBF directors specifically, but that is not amazing, there hardly any guidance is given to them. And I know that confusion is the thrill of BLML. But please Grattan, join us in the statement that somebody with AK2 in trumps as his last three cards wins all three claiming tricks without making any statement, even when there is still a trump outside. This fits with guidance given in my country, in the ACBL, and probably in more countries as soon as somebody finds it useful to produce guidance there. After that I leave the floor for those wanting to find the borderline. With 32 in trumps, one outside and a similar statement I know the answer. ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 20:07:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:07:10 +1100 (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 UAA06580 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:07:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.136] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11iwNY-000Fn8-00; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:06:52 +0000 Message-ID: <002601bf25da$be567aa0$885208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jeremy Rickard" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:06:05 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 November 1999 21:16 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > >But the kind of questioning that has been defended is >different, in that one is merely trying to ensure that >partner is generally well-informed, and not passing the >message "That bid means ..., *and so you'd better ...*" > >Is it possible that Kaplan read a distinction like this (which >you didn't intend) into your words? > +=+ No. By 1991 Kaplan knew that his earlier argument was unacceptable at WBF level. It had been made clear to him that the device of asking a question of opponent in order to inform partner of *anything* was not only contrary to law but also improper. I did not ever hear that he passed public comment on the point after that, nor did he argue in 1991/2 when invited to comment on my intention to clarify the subject in the EBL commentary, where I fastened pointedly for my example on the subject matter of his earlier published argument (without pointing to it directly) in order to draw attention to the proper principle. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 21:17:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:17:14 +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 VAA06874 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:17:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 22:17:54 -0800 Message-ID: <009601bf25c3$2cfb9980$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.2.0.58.19991102210426.009df620@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 22:17:53 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch writes: > For those who haven't noticed, the ACBL has put the 1998 Summer NABC > casebook, _Looped in Chicago_, on its Web site in the members-only section. > It is accessible from the main page, at www.acbl.org. Other casebooks are > to follow, it says. > > The entire book is on one page, and it can take a while to load. I find it > worth the effort, although I still intend to buy a print copy when I'm in > Boston this month. > Be sure to buy it from the ACBL table, because the private booksellers at NABCs charge more (the ACBL won't give them a good wholesale price, they tell me). The 1998 Fall NABC was in Orlando, and that casebook has also been published. It includes 40 cases: 24 tempo, 3 UI, and 13 MI. The web site says it will be published there "next week." The Spring 1998 NABC (Reno) casebook, David, may be coming out of limbo, as the web site says it is "coming soon." The Summer 1999 NABC (San Antonio) casebook won't be out for a while. Casebooks take a lot of time and effort to produce, so that is understandable. For those not attending the Boston NABC, casebooks are available from ACBL headquarters. Just call the (US) toll-free number, 800-264-2743 to order them. The person taking the call will not know what you are talking about at first, but persistence will work. The casebooks are well worth the nominal cost (which I forget at the moment). Of course you save S&H costs by buying them in Boston. We were given to understand a while back that the ACBL might make provisions for non-ACBL players to access this "members only" web site. Don't know where that stands. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 21:33:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:33:25 +1100 (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 VAA06905 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:33:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from p02s07a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.167.3] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ixil-000162-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 02:32:51 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Should we consider it a revoke? Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:25:39 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf25e5$c67ecb00$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: Martaandras@uze.net To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 6:51 AM Subject: Should we consider it a revoke? >Dear All I would really appreciate your comments on the following > case happened in Hungary recently. > >Contract is 4 Spades. Declarer won the opening lead on dummy > and leads the Q of Spades. Next opponent having the AJxx in >Spades intends to win the trick with the Ace of Spades but inadvertantly >plays a diamond. The other players play spades, the trick is quitted. >Now the player (who played the diamond) plays a spade as he > was convinced he played the Ace of trumps to the trick. Director please ! > >Thanks. > >Martaandras@uze.net >Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary Yes. In playing to the next trick he has established the revoke. L63A1 As his play was out of turn, If declarer does not accept it, the spade remains face up as a penalty card L56 and L50D applies. As revoker has the trump A, he will no doubt win a trick with it. That and one of any others won by his side will be transferred, and if this was the winning line to deprive declarer of more tricks than he would have lost if the revoke had not occurred, the TD will assign an adjusted score. L64C. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 22:20:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:20:22 +1100 (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 WAA07052 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:20:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:19:58 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA21567 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:24:32 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Should we consider it a revoke? Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:13:31 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martaandras@uze.net wrote: >Dear All I would really appreciate your comments on the following > case happened in Hungary recently. > >Contract is 4 Spades. Declarer won the opening lead on dummy > and leads the Q of Spades. Next opponent having the AJxx in >Spades intends to win the trick with the Ace of Spades but inadvertantly >plays a diamond. The other players play spades, the trick is quitted. >Now the player (who played the diamond) plays a spade as he > was convinced he played the Ace of trumps to the trick. Director please ! > >Thanks. > >Martaandras@uze.net >Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary East revokes here, no doubt about that. Since East plays in the next trick (albeit illegally), the revoke is established, since any play by the offending side in the next trick, legal or not, establishes the revoke (L63A1). Then, East leads out of turn. Unless this lead is accepted by declarer, it becomes a major penalty card. Whether a played card is inadvertent or not does not matter; a card of defender is played if partner could have seen it (apart from dropped cards, that is). Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 22:20:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:20:25 +1100 (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 WAA07054 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:20:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:19:58 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA21540 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:05:18 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Subject: RE: Non-Random Deals Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:50:23 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >We all should be more careful to quote Laws when referring to them. > >L6E4: The Director may require a different method of dealing/predealing. > >Nothing about shuffling, which I take to mean randomizing. I interpret L6E4 >as permitting computer dealing, augmented by possible duplication of hands >by the players. Randomization is still assumed. > >The game of duplicate bridge, as described in the Laws, is played with >random deals from a standard 52-card pack. When deals are not random, or we >play with a 5-suit pack, another version of the game is being played. >Nothing wrong with that, but please, ACBL, don't issue masterpoint awards >for such games. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) Eh, 5-suit bridge conflicts with Law 1 :-) If what you say is true, then you are in fact suggesting that computers are not allowed to shuffle, since that is not the same as (pre)dealing. And then the only legal way of shuffling is that somebody (on or off table) shuffles a pack thoroughly, have it duplicated if required, etc. Would you want to do that in a large event with hundreds of deals to be played? ;-) Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 3 23:04:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:04:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from field.videotron.net (field.videotron.net [205.151.222.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07253 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:04:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([207.253.117.74]) by field.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with SMTP id <0FKM00C7TEU87Z@field.videotron.net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:03:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 07:02:46 -0500 From: Christian Chantigny Subject: Re: Should we consider it a revoke? To: Martaandras@uze.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000a01bf25f3$58a740e0$4a75fdcf@default> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't really see a problem with this one. The failure to follow suit constitutes a revoke (Law 61) and the play out of turn by offender establishes the revoke ( Law 63 A.1). It is now up to declarer to decide whether or not he wishes to accept the play out of turn or treat it as a major penalty card. As my mentor Stan Tench constantly reminds me, "Read the Law book!". Touché away! Christian Chantigny -----Message d'origine----- De : Martaandras@uze.net À : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : 3 novembre, 1999 01:58 Objet : Should we consider it a revoke? >Dear All I would really appreciate your comments on the following > case happened in Hungary recently. > >Contract is 4 Spades. Declarer won the opening lead on dummy > and leads the Q of Spades. Next opponent having the AJxx in >Spades intends to win the trick with the Ace of Spades but inadvertantly >plays a diamond. The other players play spades, the trick is quitted. >Now the player (who played the diamond) plays a spade as he > was convinced he played the Ace of trumps to the trick. Director please ! > >Thanks. > >Martaandras@uze.net >Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 01:03:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:45:36 +1100 (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 XAA07489 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:45:20 +1100 (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 11izmc-000HKq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:44:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:39:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Should we consider it a revoke? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Martin Sinot writes >Martaandras@uze.net wrote: > >>Dear All I would really appreciate your comments on the following >> case happened in Hungary recently. >> >>Contract is 4 Spades. Declarer won the opening lead on dummy >> and leads the Q of Spades. Next opponent having the AJxx in >>Spades intends to win the trick with the Ace of Spades but inadvertantly >>plays a diamond. The other players play spades, the trick is quitted. >>Now the player (who played the diamond) plays a spade as he >> was convinced he played the Ace of trumps to the trick. Director please ! >> >>Thanks. >> >>Martaandras@uze.net >>Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary > >East revokes here, no doubt about that. Since East plays in the next >trick (albeit illegally), the revoke is established, since any play by >the offending side in the next trick, legal or not, establishes the >revoke (L63A1). Then, East leads out of turn. Unless this lead is >accepted by declarer, it becomes a major penalty card. Whether a >played card is inadvertent or not does not matter; a card of defender >is played if partner could have seen it (apart from dropped cards, >that is). > >Martin Sinot >martin@spase.nl > and .... if East is so injudicious as to say "Oops I thought I was winning this trick with Spade Ace " (Law 49) then that becomes a major penalty card too. Perhaps East should try the magic words "Oh S**t" - it might work (on an American TD anyway) :)) Perhaps we need a new law - after all it's not bridge is it (say analogous to L25B so we can take back plays as well as bids) (IT'S A JOKE GUYS AND GALS. I DON'T MEAN IT!!) Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 01:12:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:12:32 +1100 (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 BAA07889 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:12:23 +1100 (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 JAA13079 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:12:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991103091359.0072c5c8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:13:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: <19991102185509.273.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <005f01bf2557$1e222580$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:54 PM 11/2/99 -0600, Roger wrote: >I might suggest that an appropriate alert procedure would be one based upon >a specification that the beginning player should not have to even know of >the existence of an AP in order to comply. In other words, it is the use of >artificial means that conveys a duty on its user, not his presence in the >event. The expectation that the novice must have the same knowledge as the >master in order to comply is a large source of disenchantment with >tournament. Another potential source of disenchantment has been recently introduced into ACBL play. These disenchanted folks are not novices, but rather players of advancing years who have been bidding the same way for decades, since long before there was such a thing as an alert procedure. They eschew any of that "newfangled stuff", and view their methods as straightforward and natural. They do not believe that the alert procedure affects them, and simply do not worry about it; they bid as they always have, and do not alert anything. Until the latest round of changes to the alert procedure, these folks remained, as they always had been, in compliance with the alert rules. But with the latest changes -- in particular, the requirement that certain low-level penalty doubles be alerted -- they no longer are, although I suspect that they would be overwhelmingly shocked to learn this; if the new rules were to be enforced against them, the majority would likely abandon duplicate rather than take on the added burden of learning to comply with the current rules. We have only just begun to see the fallout. Now that the dam has been broken, I predict that it will not be too long before other of these folks' methods -- which have, indeed, become, over the years, uncommon, unusual and unexpected -- such as strong two-bids, possibly even four-card major openings, will become alertable. I take no position on the desirability of this trend, but it is happening. 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 Nov 4 01:38:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA08041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:38:25 +1100 (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 BAA08036 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:38:18 +1100 (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 ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:34:12 -0600 Message-ID: <002801bf2608$fc0f05a0$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> Reply-To: "Chyah Burghard" From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "Bridge-Laws" Subject: Fw: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:37:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't know who might have started that rumor, but it is not true. Where the ACBL has had to pay a lot of people to produce a product, it will most likely be in the Member's section. Kent and I have made a recommendation to offer cheaper subscriptions to people who live in non-ACBL countries (USA, Canada, Mexico, Bermuda), but that has not gone before the Board of Directors as of yet. Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French We were given to understand a while back that the ACBL might make provisions for non-ACBL players to access this "members only" web site. Don't know where that stands. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 02:20:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 02:20:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.171]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08347 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 02:20:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from p9fs09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.160] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11j2Ca-0002f6-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:19:57 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:20:01 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf260e$e5a42240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 2:54 PM Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure >At 12:54 PM 11/2/99 -0600, Roger wrote: > >>I might suggest that an appropriate alert procedure would be one based upon >>a specification that the beginning player should not have to even know of >>the existence of an AP in order to comply. In other words, it is the use of >>artificial means that conveys a duty on its user, not his presence in the >>event. The expectation that the novice must have the same knowledge as the >>master in order to comply is a large source of disenchantment with >>tournament. > >Another potential source of disenchantment has been recently introduced >into ACBL play. These disenchanted folks are not novices, but rather >players of advancing years who have been bidding the same way for decades, >since long before there was such a thing as an alert procedure. They >eschew any of that "newfangled stuff", and view their methods as >straightforward and natural. They do not believe that the alert procedure >affects them, and simply do not worry about it; they bid as they always >have, and do not alert anything. > >Until the latest round of changes to the alert procedure, these folks >remained, as they always had been, in compliance with the alert rules. But >with the latest changes -- in particular, the requirement that certain >low-level penalty doubles be alerted -- they no longer are, although I >suspect that they would be overwhelmingly shocked to learn this; if the new >rules were to be enforced against them, the majority would likely abandon >duplicate rather than take on the added burden of learning to comply with >the current rules. We have only just begun to see the fallout. > >Now that the dam has been broken, I predict that it will not be too long >before other of these folks' methods -- which have, indeed, become, over >the years, uncommon, unusual and unexpected -- such as strong two-bids, >possibly even four-card major openings, will become alertable. I take no >position on the desirability of this trend, but it is happening. I wonder why we started alerting at all! Believing as I do, that a well completed CC is far better disclosure than any alert whe meaning of which is not queried, I would advocate the abolition of the alert procedure and the enforcement of the CC regulations. Beginners would be happy, they may not know what is going on, but alerts do not change that for them. The wrinklies never needed it anyway. Good tournament players know when and how to ask, so this leaves the middle of the road BLs, who would soon find something else to practice their interogatory skills on. Anne > > >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 Nov 4 02:23:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 02:23:17 +1100 (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 CAA08371 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 02:23:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP260.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.22]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17517 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:22:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991103091822.0097df00@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:21:08 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members In-Reply-To: <009601bf25c3$2cfb9980$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <4.2.0.58.19991102210426.009df620@mail.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Be sure to buy it from the ACBL table, because the private booksellers at >NABCs charge more (the ACBL won't give them a good wholesale price, they >tell me). Of course. I'd have bought several in San Antonio, but my luggage was already loaded down with other books I bought there. We'll be driving to Boston, so that's not as much of a concern. >The casebooks are well worth the nominal >cost (which I forget at the moment). Of course you save S&H costs by buying >them in Boston. I think they were $11 at the ACBL table in San Antonio. Worth it, as you say. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 02:26:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 02:26:52 +1100 (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 CAA08399 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 02:26:44 +1100 (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 KAA23870; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:26:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA150042787; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:26:27 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA286882786; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:26:26 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:26:08 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Should we consider it a revoke? Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Martaandras@uze.net 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 CAA08400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why Not ?? Law 61A. Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44, or .... constitutes a revoke. Law 63A.1 A revoke becomes established when the offender or his partner plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, established the revoke. So you have an established revoke, followed by a lead out of turn by a defender (Law 56). Where is the prob ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City PS If you can read Office-97 Powerpoint I can send you a flow chart illustrating Laws on revoke (English and French) -----Message d'origine----- De: Martaandras Date: 3 novembre, 1999 01:32 À: bridge-laws Cc: Martaandras Objet: Should we consider it a revoke? Dear All I would really appreciate your comments on the following case happened in Hungary recently. Contract is 4 Spades. Declarer won the opening lead on dummy and leads the Q of Spades. Next opponent having the AJxx in Spades intends to win the trick with the Ace of Spades but inadvertantly plays a diamond. The other players play spades, the trick is quitted. Now the player (who played the diamond) plays a spade as he was convinced he played the Ace of trumps to the trick. Director please ! Thanks. Martaandras@uze.net Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 03:38:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 03:38:35 +1100 (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 DAA08831 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 03:38:25 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13885 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:38:15 +0100 Received: from ip217.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.217), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda13883; Wed Nov 3 17:38:12 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 17:38:13 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C288@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C288@fdwag002s.fd.agro.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 DAA08833 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >> +=+ I understood the player believed all the >> cards in the suit were equally good? And if >> this is his belief I am amazed that anyone >> can suggest it is irrational ('wholly illogical, >> absurd') to play any one of them. What is >> more I consider the action inferior whether >> or not careless; either way it is 'normal' (sic). >> And this goes for playing 2 from AK2 as well >> if he believes there are no more out. The >> action is inferior because it fails to guard >> against error, but if a card is believed good >> it is can hardly be irrational to seek to cash >> it. On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:21:35 +0100, "Kooijman, A." wrote: >But please Grattan, join us in the statement that somebody >with AK2 in trumps as his last three cards wins all three claiming tricks >without making any statement, even when there is still a trump outside. This >fits with guidance given in my country, in the ACBL, and probably in more >countries as soon as somebody finds it useful to produce guidance there. >After that I leave the floor for those wanting to find the borderline. With >32 in trumps, one outside and a similar statement I know the answer. Grattan's position is IMO obviously the logically correct one. Ton's position is an extremely practical one. In Denmark we also teach TDs that claimers are allowed to cash suits from the top down. I see no difference at all between AK2, J95, and 532: if I believe all my three cards are good, it does not matter in which order I take them. And in that case, I will either always take them from the top just in case I've overlooked something or always take them in random order. I find it reasonable to use the guideline that suits are taken from the top down - this corresponds to saying that any claim implicitly includes "taking my suits from the top down" unless something different is explicitly said. I would also be happy with Grattan's logic: any suit that the claimer believes is high is cashed in the worst possible order. But I would really hate to have to distinguish between AK2 and J95 - that seems to me to be neither practical nor logical. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 04:01:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:01:25 +1100 (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 EAA08989 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:01:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from p6ds10a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.170.110] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11j3mJ-0006wn-00; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:00:55 -0800 Message-ID: <000c01bf261c$da736a80$6eaa93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:59:02 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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' ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 03 November 1999 08:36 Subject: RE: careless v irrational > >> >> And this goes for playing 2 from AK2 as well >> if he believes there are no more out. The >> action is inferior because it fails to guard >> against error, but if a card is believed good >> it is can hardly be irrational to seek to cash >> it. [There is no guidance given to WBF >> Directors] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > >. But please Grattan, join us in the statement that somebody >with AK2 in trumps as his last three cards wins all three claiming tricks >without making any statement, even when there is still a trump outside. +=+ Yes. I have no problem with this. It is primarily the NT hand or the side suit where all the outside cards have "gone" (except for one I forgot) that I referred to. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 04:20:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:20:11 +1100 (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 EAA09122 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:20:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:19:45 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id SAA24869 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:07:42 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Should we consider it a revoke? Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:56:34 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: >and .... if East is so injudicious as to say "Oops I thought I was >winning this trick with Spade Ace " (Law 49) then that becomes a major >penalty card too. > >Perhaps East should try the magic words "Oh S**t" - it might work (on an >American TD anyway) :)) > >Perhaps we need a new law - after all it's not bridge is it (say >analogous to L25B so we can take back plays as well as bids) (IT'S A >JOKE GUYS AND GALS. I DON'T MEAN IT!!) > >Mike >-- >michael amos Eh, I am not an American TD, so it probably won't work with me :))) I guess such a law already exists (at least for this case); since Easts card was a revoke, he can replace it with a correct one at the expense of a major penalty card, if he wakes up in time. Which obviously he did not. Or do you mean that East for example plays a small spade (legal), then wants to retract his card and play the ace? Hmm, if he is quick enough about it maybe people could think he plays two cards at the same time; then he can choose the card he really wants to play ;-) At least you wouldn't want East to retract his card if anybody else played after him, or the infamous Alcatraz-coup is going to give TD's lots of work... Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 04:50:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:50:00 +1100 (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 EAA09317 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:49:53 +1100 (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 <19991103174941.RWFC8534.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:49:41 -0800 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:49:37 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991103091822.0097df00@mail.earthlink.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The Vancouver book is done (I think it is really good - I found it more educational than some of the others) and should be available at Boston. It was sent to ACBL for printing around the 25th of October. The San Antonio book will be out just before the spring Nationals. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 05:46:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:55:35 +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 EAA09336 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:55:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-53.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.53]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA07212 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:55:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38202CEF.1E8F15BB@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 13:39:12 +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: <006501bf25a0$fa390860$335208c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > >People who think all the cards are good, and are certain of > >it, claim, they don't play. > >So you don't have evidence for that. > >People who think that all the cards are good, but are not > >100% certain, play one more round, from the top. > >No-one deliberately plays them from the bottom up. > > > +=+ Irrelevant. We are not talking about > what people "do" habitually, we are > talking about what it would be irrational > for them to do if they did it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Quite relevant. I was commenting on David's assertion that he has evidence for this. You cannot have evidence for this kind of behaviour, it never happens. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 06:02:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA09533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 06:02:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f25.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA09528 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 06:01:54 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 75410 invoked by uid 0); 3 Nov 1999 19:01:11 -0000 Message-ID: <19991103190111.75409.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 03 Nov 1999 11:01:08 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 19:01:08 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Anne Jones" >From: Eric Landau >>At 12:54 PM 11/2/99 -0600, Roger wrote: >> >>>I might suggest that an appropriate alert procedure would be one >>>based >>>upon a specification that the beginning player should not >>>have to even >>>know of the existence of an AP in order to comply. In >>>other words, it >>>is the use of artificial means that conveys a duty >>>on its user, not >>>his presence in the event. The expectation that >>>the novice must have >>>the same knowledge as the master in order to >>>comply is a large source >>>of disenchantment with tournament. I would like to agree, but define a "beginning player". Is it the person who's played kitchen bridge for 40 years, and has found someone at work to take him to a duplicate game? Is it a person who's made it through (ACBL-land, here) Audrey's Club series book (which teaches weak 2's, transfers, limit raises (but not a forcing major raise), and mentions negative doubles)? Is it the beginner who was taught basic Precision, because it is, after all, a decent beginning system, especially for those people who like rules over analysis (at least to start)? >> >>Another potential source of disenchantment has been recently >>introduced >>into ACBL play. These disenchanted folks are not >>novices, but rather >>players of advancing years who have been bidding >>the same way for >>decades, since long before there was such a thing >>as an alert procedure. [who now have to alert some "time immemorial" calls, and are/may be leaving bridge as a result]. But the beginners who learn now don't know Goren (Culbertson). They are just as likely to be disenchanted with having to learn two systems (what they play, and what is "the time immemorial meaning") in order to play. I've also seen people who don't realize that "Alert" means "there's something non-standard", because there's only one alerted meaning in situation X in the community in which they play. Example: at the UWaterlooBC, there was a rage of DONT overcalls of NT. One pair I knew asked me to help them build a system. They specifically did not want to play DONT, but wanted something useful, constructive and "different". I suggested Brozel. So deep in the UWBC team league, the auction goes 1NT (15-17) -(2D!)-3NT. When declarer's RHO got in, she lead a heart. 5 heart tricks later...Declarer: "How did you know his other suit was hearts?" RHO: "He told me with the 2D bid." D: "But doesn't that just show diamonds and a major?" RHO: "No, it shows diamonds and hearts." So, is that the fault of Declarer? Or her teachers? Or of how the Alert procedure forces people who are still working hard on "4+4+4+?=13" to know that they're Alerting bid X because it's different from how it was played 20 years before they were born, not just because it means X? Given that I was one of the teachers of everybody at the table, I am sort of thinking the second, and I accept at least some of the blame. >>Now that the dam has been broken, I predict that it will not be too >>long >>before other of these folks' methods -- which have, indeed, >>become, over >>the years, uncommon, unusual and unexpected -- such as >>strong two-bids, >>possibly even four-card major openings, will become >>alertable. I take >>no position on the desirability of this trend, >>but it is happening. > >I wonder why we started alerting at all! Believing as I do, that a >well >completed CC is far better disclosure than any alert the meaning >of which >is not queried, I would advocate the abolition of the alert >procedure and >the enforcement of the CC regulations. First, I agree with you about CCs. And, this is one of the peeves with the ACBL that Marvin and I share - the CC regulations are *not* enforced, even when needed; and I still get people (fewer in the last couple of years, but still) who are very indignant when I ask them to keep their CC on the table so I can read it, rather than in it's "home" in their purse/under their seat/wherever. I can't believe it's because they all want the information that I'm interested in the auction, and they want my partner to be UI'd whenever I have an interest (actually it is my opinion that those people wouldn't know a UI case if it hit them in the head). OTOH, the ACBL convention card, with it's goal to minimize written text (which usually over here is scrawled text, I understand their reasons, I just think they've cured the symptoms, not the disease) is also difficult for beginners, in its own way (For those unfamiliar with the ACBL convention card, a copy is available for view at http://www.acbl.org/convcard/SS1.jpg ). However, my own personal HO (which also depends on the CC regulations being enforced): 1: decide what "conventions" "tournament players" should have passing familiarity with. 2: redesign the CC to remove checkboxes for conventions not in 1). 3: Anything that can be completely explained by check boxes (filled or not) or text in the string "0123456789CDHS+-" plus the symbols "(NT)(points)(HCP)(to)(->)(through)" or a combination of both is not alertable. Anything else conventional is. Doubles? Negative or not - check the card. Either "Negative" is checked, and a limit is provided (-> 3S), or it's not. Easy, and unalertable either way. (BTW, I believe that Support doubles, Maximal doubles and possibly Responsive doubles would have to be de-checkboxed. But IANAExpert, either in bridge or knowing what "everybody" should be familiar with). Weak/Strong 2s? Numbers are on the card. Even Precision 2C would be fine, because it is "11-16, 6+C or 5+C, 4+H/S". Probably 2C strong, artificial and forcing would be Alertable, however. Not a big deal, I think. Defences to NT? Transfers/two-way Stayman/natural? All non-Alertable. It's on the card - you can check. Yeah, that means you have to check the card a lot. OTOH, that would minimize the UI to partner when you do check the card. But it's easy to describe, and I think usable. Of course, the hide-bound bridge players (who learned about 20 years after the people in Eric's post) who refuse to look at the card when it's right there in front of them, would probably leave in disgust (No, I didn't have at least 5 people ask me our carding, often twice or three times, last Sunday, when it was completely marked on our card, conveniently faced towards declarer. And wouldn't accept "on the card" as an answer. Again). Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 07:13:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:13:56 +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 HAA09785 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:13:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:13:38 -0800 Message-ID: <00d001bf2637$ec3953e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge-Laws" References: <002801bf2608$fc0f05a0$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:12:44 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Chyah Burghard wrote: > I don't know who might have started that rumor, but > it is not true. > > Where the ACBL has had to pay a lot of people to > produce a product, it will most likely be in the > Member's section. > > Kent and I have made a recommendation to > offer cheaper subscriptions to people who live in > non-ACBL countries (USA, Canada, Mexico, Bermuda), > but that has not gone before the Board of Directors > as of yet. > > Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator > > From: Marvin L. French > We were given to understand a while back that the ACBL might make > provisions > for non-ACBL players to access this "members only" web site. Don't > know > where that stands. > Geez, Chyah, isn't that "making provisions for non-ACBL players to access this web site?" ACBL people other than you have discussed this possibility, I did not dream it up. I said "might." Yes, the ACBL is slow to make public what they sell, with no consideration given to the promotion of the game that might result. They did not put the 1997 Laws of Duplicate Bridge on the web site until a year after they were out, so as to recoup printing costs by book sales (I was told by headquarters) before doing so. Ditto with the rubber bridge Laws of 1993, which I see are finally on the web site after 5-6 years. Both books carry a weighty copyright notice: ####### All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. ####### I counter that by saying my quotes of the Laws are taken from the non-copyrighted WBF version, which is nearly identical. The WBF, incidentally, encourages downloading of the entire book. Good for them! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 07:15:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:15:40 +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 HAA09794 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:15:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:15:23 -0800 Message-ID: <00e201bf2638$2a6d6660$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" References: Subject: Re: Non-Random Deals Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:15:21 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: Martin Sinot To: 'Bridge Laws Discussion List' Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 2:50 AM Subject: RE: Non-Random Deals > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >We all should be more careful to quote Laws when referring to them. > > > >L6E4: The Director may require a different method of dealing/predealing. e.g., a computer may deal the cards directly to the players via a monitor, or may predeal the cards internally to a file for later output (e.g., printing of hand records). > >Nothing about shuffling, which I take to mean randomizing. I interpret > >L6E4 as permitting computer dealing, augmented by possible duplication > >ofhands by the players. Randomization is still assumed. > > > >The game of duplicate bridge, as described in the Laws, is played with > >random deals from a standard 52-card pack. When deals are not random, or > >we play with a 5-suit pack, another version of the game is being played. > >Nothing wrong with that, but please, ACBL, don't issue masterpoint awards > >for such games. > > > Eh, 5-suit bridge conflicts with Law 1 :-) Yes, and non-random deals conflict with the implied randomizing requirement (shuffling, when done by humans). > If what you say is true, then you are in fact suggesting that computers > are not allowed to shuffle, since that is not the same as (pre)dealing. > And then the only legal way of shuffling is that somebody (on or off > table) shuffles a pack thoroughly, have it duplicated if required, etc. > Would you want to do that in a large event with hundreds of deals > to be played? ;-) > Geez, by "Randomization is still assumed" I meant computer randomization, not shuffling. Okay, I wasn't clear. Since I too was nitpicking, no complaint. L6E4 avoids the word "shuffle," probably because computer randomizing does not (should not) emulate the way humans randomize the pack, and the writer did not wish to imply that. Despite the non-use of the word shuffle, *randomization is still asssumed." I could easily be wrong, and sponsors of games with non-random deals could seize upon the ambiguity of L6E4 to legitimize what they do. In 1950, teacher George Trout had a big junior game here in San Diego every Monday night, incorporating one par board for each player among his predealt boards. When North opened up the traveliing score, he would read off any par result noted at the bottom. "Did you make your par?" was a common question after the game was over. For declarer play pars, one-upsmanship required that you spot the par when dummy came down, say "Ah, here's my par," and claim with an appropriate statement as to the line of play. George stole hands from the few bridge books of that period, so this was not difficult. Results on the par hands counted in the scoring, which wasn't really cricket. George recruited players for his lesson series (10 weeks for beginners, 10 intermediate, no advanced) from those attending his free public lessons at one of the big department stores. He also ran regular club games besides the Junior game. His policy was to discourage players from entering the regular games until he felt they were ready, or until they had earned the 10 masterpoints required to be a Master and could no longer play as a Junior. To accomplish this within one year was considered quite exceptional. The overall program was very successful. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 07:18:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:18:00 +1100 (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 HAA09816 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:17:52 +1100 (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 11j6ql-000092-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:17:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:58:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Should we consider it a revoke? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Martaandras@uze.net writes >Dear All I would really appreciate your comments on the following > case happened in Hungary recently. > >Contract is 4 Spades. Declarer won the opening lead on dummy > and leads the Q of Spades. Next opponent having the AJxx in >Spades intends to win the trick with the Ace of Spades but inadvertantly >plays a diamond. The other players play spades, the trick is quitted. >Now the player (who played the diamond) plays a spade as he > was convinced he played the Ace of trumps to the trick. Director please ! > >Thanks. > >Martaandras@uze.net >Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary the card is played (even if unintentionally). Revoke established, and probably the 2 trick penalty once the smoke has cleared. 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 Nov 4 08:06:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:06:27 +1100 (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 IAA10044 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:06:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.45.73]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19991103203958.EMWQ24056@default> for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:39:58 +0000 Message-ID: <012101bf263b$5f368e00$d92d4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Bridge-Laws" References: <002801bf2608$fc0f05a0$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> <00d001bf2637$ec3953e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:37:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > From: Marvin L. French > > We were given to understand a while back that the ACBL might make > > provisions > > for non-ACBL players to access this "members only" web site. Don't > > know > > where that stands. Marv, WHO gave you that understanding? > > > Geez, Chyah, isn't that "making provisions for non-ACBL players to access > this web site?" ACBL people other than you have discussed this possibility, > I did not dream it up. I said "might." > > Yes, the ACBL is slow to make public what they sell, with no consideration > given to the promotion of the game that might result. They did not put the > 1997 Laws of Duplicate Bridge on the web site until a year after they were > out, so as to recoup printing costs by book sales (I was told by > headquarters) before doing so. WHO Marv, who at headquarters told you this? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 08:26:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:26:54 +1100 (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 IAA10152 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:26:47 +1100 (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 ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:25:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991102085656.006a56b0@pop.cais.com> References: <381DACA7.D59EAF30@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991101085347.00715850@pop.cais.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:23:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eric Landau writes: > It is precisely this point ("a non-alert constitutes a >complete explanation") with which I was trying to express my strong >disagreement. I reckon I have to agree with your disagreement. :-) If (in the ACBL) one's partner opens 2S, and if one's agreement is either (a) 2S is weak or (b) 2S is strong, one does not alert. Nonetheless, the non-alert does not constitute a complete explanation because (a) it doesn't say which option the bid is, and (b) even within those options, there are variations in style which would be part of such an explanation. 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/AwUBOCCoib2UW3au93vOEQIW/QCgyKdpvwR3Osaj+uVCRtXd2B4ys7gAoMB2 ppNMrWC8zn/YaEOt0cqIvys4 =7jnZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 09:16:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:16:38 +1100 (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 JAA10280 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:16:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:08:46 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19991103190111.75409.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:11:44 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:01 PM -0500 11/3/99, Michael Farebrother wrote: >First, I agree with you about CCs. And, this is one of the peeves with the >ACBL that Marvin and I share And I! > - the CC regulations are *not* enforced, even when needed [snip] >Of course, the hide-bound bridge players (who learned about 20 years after >the people in Eric's post) who refuse to look at the card when it's right >there in front of them, would probably leave in disgust (No, I didn't have >at least 5 people ask me our carding, often twice or three times, last >Sunday, when it was completely marked on our card, conveniently faced >towards declarer. And wouldn't accept "on the card" as an answer. Again). Heh. A while back, my LHO asked partner the meaning of one of my calls. She couldn't remember for sure, and fumbled with the answer. LHO asked more (and more pointed) questions. Partner got more confused. At this point, I suggested that she look at our convention card, where the answer was clearly and completely marked. Her rather supercilious answer was "I don't read convention cards!" The only reason I didn't call the TD is because I was (and am) convinced it would have done no good. BTW, LHO is (at least) a Life Master; my partner has about 2 master points. 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/AwUBOCC0M72UW3au93vOEQJVSgCguUEmK5zVfyAoAX5RCC8v2qPecxgAnjKh rbJyRdYJnEc7VrkGnQY9NWPC =B0im -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 11:03:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:03:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe20.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.124]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA10495 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:03:08 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 38342 invoked by uid 65534); 4 Nov 1999 00:02:29 -0000 Message-ID: <19991104000229.38341.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.164.166] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <19991103190111.75409.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:02:03 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 Farebrother To: Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 1:01 PM Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure > >From: "Anne Jones" > >From: Eric Landau > >>At 12:54 PM 11/2/99 -0600, Roger wrote: -s- > >I wonder why we started alerting at all! Believing as I do, that a >well > >completed CC is far better disclosure than any alert the meaning >of which > >is not queried, I would advocate the abolition of the alert >procedure and > >the enforcement of the CC regulations. > > First, I agree with you about CCs. And, this is one of the peeves with the > ACBL that Marvin and I share - the CC regulations are *not* enforced, even > when needed; and I still get people (fewer in the last couple of years, but > still) who are very indignant when I ask them to keep their CC on the table > so I can read it, rather than in it's "home" in their purse/under their > seat/wherever. I should think that the highest and only use of the CC ought be that at the beginning of each round it be presented to one's LHO so he may place it where he can read it without making an entertaining production. And at the end of the round it be graciously returned. But perhaps it may also serve as evidence of a player's agreements as well, should a question arise. As such, it would seem requisite that it be correctly filled out by each player. Further, I would presume that extensive work on finding the best layout would be a profitable use of effort. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > I can't believe it's because they all want the information > that I'm interested in the auction, and they want my partner to be UI'd > whenever I have an interest (actually it is my opinion that those people > wouldn't know a UI case if it hit them in the head). OTOH, the ACBL > convention card, with it's goal to minimize written text (which usually over > here is scrawled text, I understand their reasons, I just think they've > cured the symptoms, not the disease) is also difficult for beginners, in its > own way (For those unfamiliar with the ACBL convention card, a copy is > available for view -s- > Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 11:51:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:51:16 +1100 (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 LAA10621 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:51:05 +1100 (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 11jB7A-000AwI-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:50:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:23:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members References: <4.2.0.58.19991102210426.009df620@mail.earthlink.net> <009601bf25c3$2cfb9980$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009601bf25c3$2cfb9980$622ed2cc@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: >Brian Baresch writes: > >> For those who haven't noticed, the ACBL has put the 1998 Summer NABC >> casebook, _Looped in Chicago_, on its Web site in the members-only >section. >> It is accessible from the main page, at www.acbl.org. Other casebooks are >> to follow, it says. >> >> The entire book is on one page, and it can take a while to load. I find it >> worth the effort, although I still intend to buy a print copy when I'm in >> Boston this month. You will find that Rich Colker doesn't think that much of my ability to play the game. However, one of his suggestions criticising mine is a truly *horrible* bid! I was surprised, however, to find *every* one of my comments included: I expected to be edited. >Be sure to buy it from the ACBL table, because the private booksellers at >NABCs charge more (the ACBL won't give them a good wholesale price, they >tell me). > >The 1998 Fall NABC was in Orlando, and that casebook has also been >published. It includes 40 cases: 24 tempo, 3 UI, and 13 MI. The web site >says it will be published there "next week." The Spring 1998 NABC (Reno) >casebook, David, may be coming out of limbo, as the web site says it is >"coming soon." There have been a lot of arguments about it, and I won't hold my breath. >The Summer 1999 NABC (San Antonio) casebook won't be out for a while. >Casebooks take a lot of time and effort to produce, so that is >understandable. My comments have not gone in yet, and no, I haven't missed the deadline! -- 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 Thu Nov 4 11:51:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:51:33 +1100 (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 LAA10640 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:51:24 +1100 (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 11jB76-000AwH-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:50:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:15:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911022039.PAA26445@pluto.math.uga.edu> In-Reply-To: <199911022039.PAA26445@pluto.math.uga.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >If so, it might explain what (to me) is a puzzling apparent >inconsistency in Kaplan's position. [Of course, he may have >changed his mind after writing the Bridge World editorial: that's >not a source of puzzlement. But if he did so, then it is >extremely puzzling that he then thought the wording of L73B1 was >adequate: if he himself could publicly "misinterpret" it, then >surely it needed to be made less ambiguous.] Kaplan has apparently said on some occasions that he liked elasticity in the Laws. It is more the modern style [and certainly the opinions of some but not all of this list] that we should make the wording as unarguable as possible. I am not sure that is such a good idea: Kaplan apparently thought it a poor idea. I do not have the problem that some do of working out and promulgating reasonable interpretations. The line between Laws and regulations is not set in stone, and because of the differences in the way the game is played in various parts of the world, if we take the ambiguity out of the Laws maybe we shall have to move the line between Laws and regulations - else perhaps certain SOs will not follow the Laws accurately. -- 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 Thu Nov 4 11:51:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:51:19 +1100 (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 LAA10622 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:51:08 +1100 (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 11jB7B-000NVb-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:50:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:07:40 +0000 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> <3.0.1.32.19991101085347.00715850@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991102085656.006a56b0@pop.cais.com> <005e01bf2557$1c33c300$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005e01bf2557$1c33c300$622ed2cc@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: >Not quite right, Herman, although usually true in the cases of penalty vs >non-penalty doubles. > >As I wrote elsewhere, in the auction 1S-2C-Dbl, the lack of an Alert for the >double constitutes a complete explanation of it: negative double, implying >four hearts. Nobody in ACBL-land would suppose that this double should be >questioned, just in case it might be for penalty. And if it turns out to be >a penalty double, or is part of the "negative free bid" approach, saying >nothing about hearts, which must be Alerted, any resultant damage will >surely be redressed by the TD/AC. They will not say, "You could have asked." Suppose you play with a pickup partner at short notice in an ACBL tourney. The bidding goes 1S 2C x. You have not discussed it. What do you do? While, in fact, the answer may be obvious here, it certainly gets more difficult as the sequences get more complex. Even though the ACBL defines an unalertable sequence, the question still remains, what do you do if you do not know? In England/Wales we have certainly said that if you believe it to be one of alertable options, then you alert. Ok, that's obvious enough. But what if you think it is one of options, some alertable, some not? What if you think it is probably not alertable [like 1S 2C x maybe] but you are not sure? What if you haven't a clue? -- 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 Thu Nov 4 11:51:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:51:19 +1100 (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 LAA10624 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:51:09 +1100 (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 11jB76-000AwG-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:50:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:09:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Random Deals References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >If what you say is true, then you are in fact suggesting that computers >are not allowed to shuffle, since that is not the same as (pre)dealing. Why not? The computer then deals the board, which sounds like pre- dealing to me. -- 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 Thu Nov 4 12:02:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA10688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:02:25 +1100 (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 MAA10683 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:02:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p108-tnt7.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.203.108]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id OAA24902 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:02:06 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19991104135618.007eadb0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 13:56:18 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: Re: careless v irrational Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: I believe to play 9 or 5 before the knave is careless, and my evidence for that is that it is done at my table by people who think all the cards are good. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Does this mean that nobody has ever done anything irrational at your table David? I saw a weak (but not novice!!) player play small to the 10 when faced with the sidesuit of K4 opoosite Q10 as a sidesuit in a trump contract. Entries were not a consideration. If I believed the Stevenson rule: "I have seen it happen, therefore it must be only careless" then I would have to give the defence 2 tricks in this suit if the jack was offside and declarer hadn't stated how he was going to play it. Rational people sometimes do irrational things. The fact that another player has done something does not provide any sort of evidence or indication as to whether that action was careless or irrational. Even the fact that something may be observed to happen frequently still does not provide a commentary as to whether the people doing it are being careless or irrational Patrick Carter Auckland New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 12:42:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA10757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:42:29 +1100 (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 MAA10752 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:42:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-015.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.207]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA21464 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:41:41 GMT Message-ID: <006301bf266e$5ea20e00$cf307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 02:43:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with Anne - 90% of players would enjoy the game more without 'Alerts'. Regards Fearghal Anne Jones wrote: >I wonder why we started alerting at all! Believing as I do, that a well completed CC is far better disclosure than any alert whe meaning of which is not queried, I would advocate the abolition of the alert procedure and the enforcement of the CC regulations. Beginners would be happy, they may not know what is going on, but alerts do not change that for them. The wrinklies never needed it anyway. Good tournament players know when and how to ask, so this leaves the middle of the road BLs, who would soon find something else to practice their interogatory skills on. Anne > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 13:02:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA10804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:02:14 +1100 (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 NAA10799 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:02:06 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id xZYEa26288 (3700); Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:01:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.c92102cf.255242f0@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:01:20 EST Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure To: tsvecfob@iol.ie, 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 God bless you Anne.!!!! Of course, there are many of these savants who don't agree but that makes you all the more right! The game is going to hell in a hurry and it is only people like you who can save it. Hope you do, 'cause it's what I hoped to do in my dotage. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 13:44:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA10822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:04:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10816 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:04:46 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 5QMTa28158 (3700); Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:03:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.6d7ab776.2552436e@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:03:26 EST Subject: Re: careless v irrational To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/3/99 1:48:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > Quite relevant. > I was commenting on David's assertion that he has evidence > for this. > You cannot have evidence for this kind of behaviour, it > never happens. > Opened this message with trepidation. I was right! Shouldn't have opened it. Drivel of the first class..!!!!! kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 13:54:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA10924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:54:45 +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 NAA10919 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:54:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:54:16 -0800 Message-ID: <00ea01bf266f$e45eb2e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <005f01bf2557$1e222580$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991103091359.0072c5c8@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:54:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > Until the latest round of changes to the alert procedure, these folks > remained, as they always had been, in compliance with the alert rules. But > with the latest changes -- in particular, the requirement that certain > low-level penalty doubles be alerted -- they no longer are, although I > suspect that they would be overwhelmingly shocked to learn this; if the new > rules were to be enforced against them, the majority would likely abandon > duplicate rather than take on the added burden of learning to comply with > the current rules. We have only just begun to see the fallout. It's being going on for many years, Eric > > Now that the dam has been broken, I predict that it will not be too long > before other of these folks' methods -- which have, indeed, become, over > the years, uncommon, unusual and unexpected -- such as strong two-bids, > possibly even four-card major openings, will become alertable. I take no > position on the desirability of this trend, but it is happening. > Indeed. I must now Alert my old-fashioned strong jump overcalls, bypassing of "unbiddable" suits, penalty doubles of overcalls, and natural 2NT jump overcalls (solid minor, stoppers), none of which were Alertable a few years back. People often get upset when they find we have opened a four-card major, so it would not surprise me to find an Alert required for that before long. No one seems to agree, but I am firmly convinced that the drop in ACBL membership over the years was mainly caused by the growing complexity of Alert and cc requirements. If you were to graph membership drop vs that increased complexity, you might find a high degree of correlation. During the ACBL's greatest years of growth, during the Alvin Landy captaincy I believe (1952-1967), there were no Alerts, and in the early years no cc. The first cc had 10 blank lines on which a pair could list up to a maximum of 10 conventions. Few pairs had that many. I hasten to add that I don't have the data to back up my impression of the membership numbers. Does anyone? I just remember that the regionals, sectionals, and local Unit games in these parts were much larger in those days. San Diego has many more tables per week of non-franchised games than ACBL games. In those informal games you see no convention cards, low card fees, few TD calls, and people having lots of fun just playing bridge. Not to mention the hundreds of tables of social bridge (e.g., bridge marathons), whose participants look with horror at the ACBL cc. I believe the answer is a truly two-tier ACBL, one for the scientists and one for those who just want to play cards. The present efforts through Bridge America, EasyBridge, etc., all aimed at eventually getting players into the mainstream of higher level duplicate, will come to very little. As soon as the participants encounter the ACBL cc and Alert Procedure, most of them will drop out. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 14:21:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:21:17 +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 OAA10948 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:19:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:18:44 -0800 Message-ID: <011401bf2673$4fa6f6e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge-Laws" References: <002801bf2608$fc0f05a0$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> <00d001bf2637$ec3953e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <012101bf263b$5f368e00$d92d4b0c@default> Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:18:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 F Beye > > > From: Marvin L. French > > > We were given to understand a while back that the ACBL might make > > > provisions > > > for non-ACBL players to access this "members only" web site. Don't > > > know > > > where that stands. > > Marv, WHO gave you that understanding? I don't remember. Do you think I made it up? As I recall, when we were told that casebooks on the web site would be accessible to members only, an accompanying statement said that it might be possible in the future to arrange some sort of paid subscription for access by those outside ACBL-land. Doesn't anyone else remember this? In case you think I was referring to non-paying ACBL citizens, I wasn't. The term was "non-ACBL players," by which I meant players outside ACBL-land. > > > > > > Geez, Chyah, isn't that "making provisions for non-ACBL players to access > > this web site?" ACBL people other than you have discussed this > possibility, > > I did not dream it up. I said "might." > > > > Yes, the ACBL is slow to make public what they sell, with no consideration > > given to the promotion of the game that might result. They did not put the > > 1997 Laws of Duplicate Bridge on the web site until a year after they were > > out, so as to recoup printing costs by book sales (I was told by > > headquarters) before doing so. > > WHO Marv, who at headquarters told you this? I would guess it was Gary, but that's a guess. Don't have the e-mail I received from Memphis on this (hard disk crash), but I remember the words fairly well. "The publisher will not allow us to put the Laws on the ACBL web site until the publishing costs have been recouped." That seemed sensible, so I pulled out the Laws to see who the publisher was, and was astounded to see that it was the ACBL! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 14:39:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:39:49 +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 OAA10984 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:39:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:39:27 -0800 Message-ID: <012901bf2676$3449a020$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <381DACA7.D59EAF30@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991101085347.00715850@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:30:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: Ed Reppert > > Eric Landau writes: > > > It is precisely this point ("a non-alert constitutes a > >complete explanation") with which I was trying to express my strong > >disagreement. > > I reckon I have to agree with your disagreement. :-) > > If (in the ACBL) one's partner opens 2S, and if one's agreement is either > (a) 2S is weak or (b) 2S is strong, one does not alert. Nonetheless, the > non-alert does not constitute a complete explanation because (a) it doesn't > say which option the bid is, and (b) even within those options, there are > variations in style which would be part of such an explanation. > > This is beating a dead horse. Herman has explained that when he wrote "the" it was a mistake for "a" (something like that). No one has claimed that the lack of an Alert always gives a complete explanation of a call. Just sometimes, and even then merely complete enough to justify the adjective. An opponent's non-Alert of a standard takeout double is sufficient explanation for me, complete enough, even though it does not convey every nuance of a partnership's agreements in regard to takeout doubles. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 15:29:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:29:34 +1100 (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 PAA11039 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:29:27 +1100 (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 11jEWK-000J0D-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:29:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:22:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: <006301bf266e$5ea20e00$cf307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <006301bf266e$5ea20e00$cf307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>, Fearghal O'Boyle writes >I agree with Anne - 90% of players would enjoy the game more without >'Alerts'. > >Regards >Fearghal > >Anne Jones wrote: > >>I wonder why we started alerting at all! Believing as I do, that a well >completed CC is far better disclosure than any alert whe meaning of which >is not queried, I would advocate the abolition of the alert procedure and >the enforcement of the CC regulations. >Beginners would be happy, they may not know what is going on, but alerts >do not change that for them. The wrinklies never needed it anyway. Good >tournament players know when and how to ask, so this leaves the middle >of the road BLs, who would soon find something else to practice their >interogatory skills on. > >Anne >> > > Count me in. 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 Nov 4 15:35:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:35:26 +1100 (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 PAA11059 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:35:19 +1100 (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 11jEcA-000JNA-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:35:11 +0000 Message-ID: <2KKkAVA3yQI4Ewe8@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:33:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members In-Reply-To: <011401bf2673$4fa6f6e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <011401bf2673$4fa6f6e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes I remember this. As I recall we (the Brits) p****d ourselves laughing and posted them on DWS's site anyway, since the EBU gave him permission :))))) > >"The publisher will not allow us to put the Laws on the ACBL web site until >the publishing costs have been recouped." > >That seemed sensible, so I pulled out the Laws to see who the publisher was, >and was astounded to see that it was the ACBL! > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 15:37:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:37:36 +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 PAA11077 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:37:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:37:03 -0800 Message-ID: <016101bf267e$4088b8a0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <006301bf266e$5ea20e00$cf307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:36:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: Fearghal O'Boyle > I agree with Anne - 90% of players would enjoy the game more without > 'Alerts'. > > Regards > Fearghal > > Anne Jones wrote: > > >I wonder why we started alerting at all! Believing as I do, that a well > completed CC is far better disclosure than any alert whe meaning of which > is not queried, I would advocate the abolition of the alert procedure and > the enforcement of the CC regulations. > Beginners would be happy, they may not know what is going on, but alerts > do not change that for them. The wrinklies never needed it anyway. Good > tournament players know when and how to ask, so this leaves the middle > of the road BLs, who would soon find something else to practice their > interogatory skills on. > I like the idea of optional Announcements of the meaning of ordinary calls, even if the meaning is on the cc. Saves the time of looking, even when cc regs are enforced. 1S-2C-Dbl --- "Penalty," or "Negative" 1H-2S -- "Strong," "Intermediate," or "Weak" 2S -- "Weak," or "Natural, strong" 1D-2D -- "Shows both majors," or "spades and clubs" (neither meaning currently Alertable, by the way, in ACBL-land) And so forth. Announceable calls would include only those that are unlikely to be misunderstood by the bidder's partner. Making them optional would mean that the less experienced players would not have to memorize a list of Announceble meanings. They should exclude meanings that ought to be a part of one's "general knowledge and experience" (L75C). Announcements would help reduce the frequency of the "pro question," one form of which is to inquire about the meaning of a bid when the meaning is not only known by the asker, but clearly shown on the cc. That infraction is never penalized. In fact, this is such a good idea that it is already being widely adopted by many players! They are announcing 1C as "Could be short" and weak two bids as "Weak," even though it isn't legal to do so. I see little harm in that. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 16:29:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:29:44 +1100 (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 QAA11186 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:29:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:21:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <012901bf2676$3449a020$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <381DACA7.D59EAF30@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop. mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991101085347.00715850@pop.cais.com> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:24:33 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Standard of Proof for Misbid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:30 PM -0500 11/3/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >This is beating a dead horse. Well, I kicked it 'cause it was still moving. If you're sure it's dead now, okay. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBOCEZtL2UW3au93vOEQJX9ACeOmzgL7wjWnd7SPMYvReOWllffcEAoMw5 8xTY6JYxeVDOeD2B4uWu2Dgk =m3WN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 16:44:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:44:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:root@nowhere.fragment.com [207.239.226.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11211 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:44:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:jl8e@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nowhere.fragment.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA26083 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:43:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199911040543.AAA26083@nowhere.fragment.com> To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: Message from "Anne Jones" of "Wed, 03 Nov 1999 15:20:01 GMT." <01bf260e$e5a42240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:43:47 -0500 From: Julian Lighton Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bf260e$e5a42240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, "Anne Jones" writes: >I wonder why we started alerting at all! Believing as I do, that a >well completed CC is far better disclosure than any alert whe meaning >of which is not queried, I would advocate the abolition of the alert >procedure and the enforcement of the CC regulations. > >Beginners would be happy, they may not know what is going on, but alerts >do not change that for them. The wrinklies never needed it anyway. Good >tournament players know when and how to ask, so this leaves the middle >of the road BLs, who would soon find something else to practice their >interogatory skills on. The problem with this is that the convention card has to be able to convey information on anything off-beat, and this will make it pretty cumbersome to read and to fill out, especially for the novices and ancient, set-in-their-ways players. There are also sequences that virtually nobody would ever think to look at the CC about. (For instance, until recently I played in one partnership that the sequence 1D-2C-2H showed extra values, 4+ diamonds, and 5+ _spades_. (Yes, there was a rational reason. No, you don't want to know.) Most people, even if they looked up the canape and extra values, which are true of any 1D-major rebid sequence, would assume it showed hearts, and not check. At least with alerts, there was a chance.) Alerts are messy and imperfect, but abolishing them would probably require noticably more stringent system restrictions in order to avoid chaos. -- Julian Lighton jl8e@fragment.com "Now, you smile at the nice politicians, but try not to touch them too much. They're often contagious." -- Transmetropolitan From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 19:05:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:05:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from www.networksgy.com ([208.153.97.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11428 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:04:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([208.153.97.66]) by www.networksgy.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id DAA00028 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 03:58:54 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <002a01bf2692$be70afc0$426199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Fouled Board 24 hours later Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:03:46 -0300 Organization: Central American & Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had an inquiry the other day concerning the late discovery of a fouled board. The game was a two session pairs of two 13 table sections. After announcing the winners and awarding prizes, the TD responded to a query the next day and discovered that one of the boards in the second session was misduplicated in one of the sections. When the game is rescored according to established fouled board procedures, 1st and 2nd place are reversed. Do you change the results or does this fall under the "Correction Period"? Keep in mind that this is our error, not the players. Thanks, John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation Current Residence: Georgetown, Guyana e-mail: johnmacg@hotmail.com CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 19:27:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:27:58 +1100 (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 TAA11490 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:27:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.150] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11jIFA-000Eqy-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:27:40 +0000 Message-ID: <008301bf269e$6e6a1f00$965208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:22:16 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 November 1999 01:34 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > But if he did so, then it is >>extremely puzzling that he then thought the wording of L73B1 was >>adequate: if he himself could publicly "misinterpret" it, then >>surely it needed to be made less ambiguous. > +=+ Kaplan's mind was more tortuous than that. It is quite clear that from time to time he said one thing at WBF level and another in the ACBL. For whatever reason, he may not have wanted to make known in the ACBL that at WBF level the position was what it was.+=+ > > Kaplan has apparently said on some occasions that he liked elasticity >in the Laws. It is more the modern style [and certainly the opinions of >some but not all of this list] that we should make the wording as >unarguable as possible. I am not sure that is such a good idea: Kaplan >apparently thought it a poor idea. > +=+ My opinion is that what is to be variably applied should be a matter for regulation, and established to be so in the laws. +=+ > >if we take the ambiguity out of >the Laws maybe we shall have to >move the line between Laws and >regulations +=+ Yes +=+ > - else perhaps certain SOs will not follow the Laws >accurately. > +=+ You don't say! Just look around you, now. One of my current difficulties is that the WBF Systems Policy seeks to make Brown Sticker (and thus ban in some tournaments) a call that is not conventional by law book definition - with no use of the EBU/ACBL device to control it. +=+ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 4 22:17:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 22:17:51 +1100 (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 WAA11703 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 22:17:42 +1100 (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 11jKsx-000HEy-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:16:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:19:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <01bf260e$e5a42240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf260e$e5a42240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >I wonder why we started alerting at all! Believing as I do, that a well >completed CC is far better disclosure than any alert whe meaning of which > is not queried, I would advocate the abolition of the alert procedure and >the >enforcement of the CC regulations. >Beginners would be happy, they may not know what is going on, but alerts >do not change that for them. The wrinklies never needed it anyway. Good >tournament players know when and how to ask, so this leaves the middle >of the road BLs, who would soon find something else to practice their >interogatory skills on. I have always wondered what level of player I am - now I know! No, Anne, you are wrong. I played a lot of bridge before alerts and there were a myriad of problems solved by them. No-one would know when to ask questions. People gain through playing unexpected fancy conventions. The game would get less popular because people would feel cheated more. The older players do like alerts when someone comes along playing something fancy. the tournament players certainly need them to save continuous asking of players. It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. -- 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 Nov 5 00:12:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 00:12:52 +1100 (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 AAA12039 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 00:12:42 +1100 (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 OAA02254 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:09:31 +0100 Message-ID: <38218586.4A3C5307@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 14:09:26 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Should we consider it a revoke? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Perhaps we need a new law - after all it's not bridge is it (say > analogous to L25B so we can take back plays as well as bids) (IT'S A > JOKE GUYS AND GALS. I DON'T MEAN IT!!) > > Mike > -- > michael amos Why not change the Law 25 into this one: - a change of bid is inadvertent if followed by the player's words "Oh Sh**t" - it is not inadvertent otherwise Diricting would become much simpler :)) -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Nov 5 00:19:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 00:19:48 +1100 (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 AAA12057 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 00:19:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:19:30 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA30671 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:45:03 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: Infraction after infraction Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:33:36 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Imagine the following hypothetical situation: During the auction of some deal, NS commit an infraction (let's say, they use UI). This infraction would damage NS themselves. But then they commit a second infraction, which cancels out their first infraction. How should a TD rule? Should he base the score on the expected result without the first infraction or only without the second one? Regards, Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 00:22:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 00:22:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f97.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.97]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA12084 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 00:22:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 54621 invoked by uid 0); 4 Nov 1999 13:22:05 -0000 Message-ID: <19991104132205.54620.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 04 Nov 1999 05:22:04 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fouled Board 24 hours later Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 05:22:04 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John A. MacGregor wrote: >I had an inquiry the other day concerning the late discovery of a fouled >board. The game was a two session pairs of two 13 table sections. After >announcing the winners and awarding prizes, the TD responded to a query the >next day and discovered that one of the boards in the second session was >misduplicated in one of the sections. >When the game is rescored according to established fouled board procedures, >1st and 2nd place are reversed. Do you change the results or does this fall >under the "Correction Period"? >Keep in mind that this is our error, not the players. >Thanks, >John Nasty. Someone's going to be upset. Reverse the positions, so that the real winners win, and award them the appropriate prize. Allow the faux winners to keep their prize, too, rather than try to wrench the cheque back from them. If there's a cup, the real winners get that, and get their photograph taken with it as well, for the local paper, so that everyone knows a) who the real winners are, and b) what good sports the faux winners were and are. Apologise like heck, and hope the same thing doesn't happen again. Norm. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 00:24:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 00:24:37 +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 AAA12101 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 00:24:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from p4ds07a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.167.78] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11jMsB-0008Qg-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:24:15 +0000 Message-ID: <001401bf26c7$ba1d6820$4ea793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:55:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 04 November 1999 11:36 Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure > > It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. > +=+ A sweeping statement. It would require simultaneously a rejection of all special understandings. Now I express no personal opinion but I have known many players who would regard that as a tremendous gain to their enjoyment of the game. ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 01:33:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:33:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12341 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:32:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11jNwL-000OWs-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:32:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:28:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members References: <002801bf2608$fc0f05a0$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> <00d001bf2637$ec3953e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <012101bf263b$5f368e00$d92d4b0c@default> <011401bf2673$4fa6f6e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <011401bf2673$4fa6f6e0$622ed2cc@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: >From: Richard F Beye >> > > From: Marvin L. French >> > Yes, the ACBL is slow to make public what they sell, with no >consideration >> > given to the promotion of the game that might result. They did not put >the >> > 1997 Laws of Duplicate Bridge on the web site until a year after they >were >> > out, so as to recoup printing costs by book sales (I was told by >> > headquarters) before doing so. >> >> WHO Marv, who at headquarters told you this? > >I would guess it was Gary, but that's a guess. Don't have the e-mail I >received from Memphis on this (hard disk crash), but I remember the words >fairly well. > >"The publisher will not allow us to put the Laws on the ACBL web site until >the publishing costs have been recouped." > >That seemed sensible, so I pulled out the Laws to see who the publisher was, >and was astounded to see that it was the ACBL! Gary Blaiss told this to me, as well. -- 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 Nov 5 01:33:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:33:01 +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 BAA12342 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:32:50 +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 11jNwN-000OWr-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:32:40 +0000 Message-ID: <0ra2OxBspXI4EwMp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:22:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <3.0.3.32.19991104135618.007eadb0@pop.ihug.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19991104135618.007eadb0@pop.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Patrick wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > > I believe to play 9 or 5 before the knave is careless, >and my evidence for that is that it is done at my >table by people who think all the cards are good. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Does this mean that nobody has ever done anything irrational >at your table David? > >I saw a weak (but not novice!!) player play small to the 10 >when faced with the sidesuit of K4 opoosite Q10 as a sidesuit >in a trump contract. Entries were not a consideration. > >If I believed the Stevenson rule: "I have seen it happen, >therefore it must be only careless" then I would have to give >the defence 2 tricks in this suit if the jack was offside >and declarer hadn't stated how he was going to play it. > >Rational people sometimes do irrational things. > >The fact that another player has done something does not >provide any sort of evidence or indication as to whether >that action was careless or irrational. > >Even the fact that something may be observed to happen >frequently still does not provide a commentary as to >whether the people doing it are being careless or irrational I am not talking about beginners playing a heart to the T with QT opposite Kx. I have been playing bridge for forty years. I play about 180 days a year, so I am talking of maybe 160,000 hands. Probably more: I used to play more frequently. In that time I have seen people cashing suits when they "know" there are none out. They often cash them from the top down. Quite often they don't. So on [say] one hand a session someone does not cash from the top down. Now, on the 7000 occasions that this has occurred, maybe some of them were beginners who could not tell a grape form a coconut. But in many cases there are other reasons not to cash from the top down, like playing the nearest card to the thumb, or they like to signal to dummy [some do], or they want to gauge an expression by getting a particular effect. In many cases you would really insult a player by telling him is play is irrational: he would point out that there is no rationality to playing the highest card from cards that are known to be winners. All right, my experience of the game is valueless, you say. I beg to differ. -- 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 Nov 5 01:34:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:34:13 +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 BAA12368 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:34:05 +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 11jNxM-000Of9-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:33:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:36:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fouled Board 24 hours later References: <002a01bf2692$be70afc0$426199d0@john> In-Reply-To: <002a01bf2692$be70afc0$426199d0@john> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director wrote: >I had an inquiry the other day concerning the late discovery of a fouled >board. The game was a two session pairs of two 13 table sections. After >announcing the winners and awarding prizes, the TD responded to a query the >next day and discovered that one of the boards in the second session was >misduplicated in one of the sections. >When the game is rescored according to established fouled board procedures, >1st and 2nd place are reversed. Do you change the results or does this fall >under the "Correction Period"? It falls under "Correction Period". The idea of the correction period is that you need a limit where things become unchangeable. Before the Correction Period applied, what would you do if someone challenges the results a day later? a week? a month? three years? Having said that there seems to me to be something in the idea that there are some things for which a longer Correction Period seems a good idea. The half-hour after scores are published is probably enough for rulings and appeals in a competition where people stay for the results [in a club where they do not, the start of next week's session is probably best]. However, gross scoring errors have often been considered a matter for which a longer period would seem suitable. Perhaps misboardings also. >Keep in mind that this is our error, not the players. Not relevant, I'm afraid. The whole idea of a Correction Period is to end the competition whatever, and whoever's fault it is. I think the principle is right, but I wonder how many SOs consider the ramifications, and how long the Correction Period is? Our local league has 24 hours for rulings and 48 hours for appeals: seems about right to me. -- 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 Nov 5 01:44:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:44:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu (agomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12392 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:43:52 +1100 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by agomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 11jO6X-0004hq-00; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:43:10 +0100 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:50:11 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Should we consider it a revoke? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Martaandras@uze.net > À : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date : 3 novembre, 1999 01:58 > Objet : Should we consider it a revoke? > > > >Dear All I would really appreciate your comments on the following > > case happened in Hungary recently. > > > >Contract is 4 Spades. Declarer won the opening lead on dummy > > and leads the Q of Spades. Next opponent having the AJxx in > >Spades intends to win the trick with the Ace of Spades but inadvertantly > >plays a diamond. The other players play spades, the trick is quitted. > >Now the player (who played the diamond) plays a spade as he > > was convinced he played the Ace of trumps to the trick. Director please ! > > > >Thanks. > > > >Martaandras@uze.net > >Andras Booc, Budapest, Hungary > Dear All, thanks for your comments. The full story was told by one of my TD colleagues here. As he explained he suspected he made a mistake (which I confirmed, he did) but he felt the situation was almost like an inadvertantly played card and he felt he had to restore the equity therefore decided according to that. The case reminds me to the point raised in the Editorial of The Bridge World in the October-November issues (case at the Open International Team Trial in US) and actually a poll has been initiated. It seems (as it is raised by The Bridge World) there are certain situations where following the Laws we cannot restore the equity due to the decision we have to make (like in this particular case). In this case even if we feel it is not justified that the non-offending side gains on the error of their opponents I do not think we are in the position to decide ANYTHING ELSE than an established revoke as we obviously cannot overrule the Laws. By the way what is your opinion about the poll-questions raised in the Editorial of the November issue of The Bridge World? Cheers, Andras Martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 02:15:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:15:16 +1100 (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 CAA12618 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:15:08 +1100 (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 KAA13805; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:14:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA109598496; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:14:56 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA215138495; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:14:55 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:14:42 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, mlfrench@writeme.com 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 CAA12619 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L French wrote: > > I did not dream it up. I said "might." > > > > Yes, the ACBL is slow to make public what they sell, with no >> consideration given to the promotion of the game that might result. >> They did not put the 1997 Laws of Duplicate Bridge on the web site >> until a year after they were out, so as to recoup printing costs by >> book sales (I was told by headquarters) before doing so. > > WHO Marv, who at headquarters told you this? I would guess it was Gary, but that's a guess. Don't have the e-mail I received from Memphis on this (hard disk crash), but I remember the words fairly well. "The publisher will not allow us to put the Laws on the ACBL web site until the publishing costs have been recouped." That seemed sensible, so I pulled out the Laws to see who the publisher was, and was astounded to see that it was the ACBL! Marv (Marvin L. French) [Laval Dubreuil] If you did dream it, you were not alone to do. I have exactly the same feeling from many information exchanges with ACBL. I publish a French Law book with flow charts illustrating chapters 4, 5 and 6. I put the text on a page and the related chart just in front. I easily got permission from "La federation francaise de bridge" to use law texts. May be it is not perfect, but I sold a lot around Quebec province to TDs and players. I made it 5 years ago (and adapted to 1997 Laws) to help my wife and I becoming directors and I humbly think it is a very usefull tool to learn laws and much easier to use than the official Law book. I sent an English version of these charts to somebody at ACBL headquarter who found them interesting and gently suggested some corrections. I am still waiting for permission to use English law texts. ACBL have full copyrights on use of English law texts in Werstern hemisphere.... In my "dream", somebody told me they dont want to give such permission "until publishing cost heve been recouped"... and may be after.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 02:21:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:21:36 +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 CAA12644 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:21:27 +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 KAA10980 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA23875 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:21:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:21:26 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911041521.KAA23875@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> For those who haven't noticed, the ACBL has put the 1998 Summer NABC > >> casebook, _Looped in Chicago_, on its Web site in the members-only The "main" version seems to be in Java (why?! What is wrong with HTML?), but there is also a PDF version that may be more convenient. > From: David Stevenson > You will find that Rich Colker doesn't think that much of my ability > to play the game. I think David must be referring to an upcoming book (Orlando?). He is, regrettably, not included as a commentator for the Chicago book. The very first appeal in the Chicago book features a totally illegal ruling by the AC. (No, not avg+/avg-.) Ron Gerard explains very well. Colker lambastes the AC on a judgment matter (one which I believe the AC got right, but as usual there is room for disagreement about bridge judgment) but seems to approve the legal blunder. I am looking forward to David's comments in the new book! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 02:50:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:50:11 +1100 (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 CAA12699 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:50:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:49:43 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA32609; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:50:58 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Konrad Ciborowski'" , "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Should we consider it a revoke? Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:39:27 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > michael amos wrote: >> Perhaps we need a new law - after all it's not bridge is it (say >> analogous to L25B so we can take back plays as well as bids) (IT'S A >> JOKE GUYS AND GALS. I DON'T MEAN IT!!) >> >> Mike >> -- >> michael amos > > > Why not change the Law 25 into this one: > >- a change of bid is inadvertent if followed by the player's words > "Oh Sh**t" >- it is not inadvertent otherwise > > Diricting would become much simpler :)) > but then only in America since only American TDs are supposed to fall for it :~)) Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 03:09:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:09:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [12.15.134.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA12737 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:08:51 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail.azure-tech.com; (5.65v4.0/1.3/10May95) id AA04359; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:08:42 -0500 Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-Id: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553124DAA@mail.azure-tech.com> From: Richard Willey To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:07:08 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA [mailto:Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 10:15 AMTo: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; mlfrench@writeme.com Subject: RE: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Marvin L French wrote: > > I did not dream it up. I said "might." > > Yes, the ACBL is slow to make public what they sell, with no >> consideration given to the promotion of the game that might >> result. They did not put the 1997 Laws of Duplicate Bridge on the >> web site until a year after they were out, so as to recoup >> printing costs by book sales (I was told by headquarters) before >> doing so. I would be curious whether anyone has any concrete information available about both the printing cost and publishing costs of materials such as the bridge Laws and the NABC case books. In particular, I would be extremely interested in seeing what percentage of the total cost of production is associated with printing physical media as compared to developing the intellectual property. If Marvin is correct and the primary reason not to publish on-line versions of the Laws was the fear of losing money that would be incurred specifically from printing the physical media, then I would respectfully suggest perhaps the time has come to dispense with centralized physical publication. Rather, on line publication should become the default way of communicating information. Individuals who believe that they require hard copy of the information in question have any number of different options to print whatever information that they chose. The overall goal in publishing these materials should be to ensure that the requisite information can be distributed to as many interested parties as possible. My gut feel is that - Of the set of individuals who will actual consult the Laws or read a case book, a large enough subset either have direct access to the Internet or have indirect access through an acquaintance that an on-line publication scheme is preferable to physically printing the information. richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOCGuu7+ru3nouAulEQKdtgCgvia8kjwkxEJGM/wecagyz7HpcYwAoK/7 ocW1oMMGMNMI2UsgDrpy8WBO =dvdO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 03:09:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:09:56 +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 DAA12753 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:09:48 +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 LAA13048 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:09:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA23957 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:09:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:09:50 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911041609.LAA23957@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Infraction after infraction X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Martin Sinot" > During the auction of some deal, NS commit an infraction (let's say, > they use UI). This infraction would damage NS themselves. But then > they commit a second infraction, which cancels out their first > infraction. How should a TD rule? Seems to me David and I had a great argument about this a couple of years ago, but in the end we came out with the same ruling! I hope I remember what it was. As long as both infractions are adjusted-score matters (not fixed penalties), and we are applying L12C2: a) The OS get the worst result "at all probable" among four cases: neither infraction, both infractions, either infraction alone without the other one. b) The NOS get the best result "likely" with neither infraction. Of course an AC can apply L12C3 if permitted in your jurisdiction. I see no alternative to a), but there is room for argument about b). You could give the NOS any benefit of "likely" with either infraction separately (i.e. three possibilities). I don't think that's the intent of L12C2, but it isn't explicit about multiple infractions. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 03:44:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:29:36 +1100 (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 DAA12790 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:29:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-13.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.13]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA15838; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:27:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <014901bf26e1$bc851a80$0d84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Martin Sinot" , "'Konrad Ciborowski'" , "'BLML'" Subject: Re: Should we consider it a revoke? Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:29:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Do you mean this if it were in TFLB only American Td's would bother to read it? Or that the ACBL would declare it an illegal convention and penalise under ZT? -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Martin Sinot To: 'Konrad Ciborowski' ; 'BLML' Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 10:50 AM Subject: RE: Should we consider it a revoke? >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> michael amos wrote: >>> Perhaps we need a new law - after all it's not bridge is it (say >>> analogous to L25B so we can take back plays as well as bids) (IT'S A >>> JOKE GUYS AND GALS. I DON'T MEAN IT!!) >>> >>> Mike >>> -- >>> michael amos >> >> >> Why not change the Law 25 into this one: >> >>- a change of bid is inadvertent if followed by the player's words >> "Oh Sh**t" >>- it is not inadvertent otherwise >> >> Diricting would become much simpler :)) >> > >but then only in America since only American TDs are supposed >to fall for it :~)) > >Martin Sinot >martin@spase.nl > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 03:48:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:48:14 +1100 (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 DAA12844 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:48:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP308.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.46]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04492 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:47:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991104103902.00a0b820@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 10:45:48 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members In-Reply-To: <199911041521.KAA23875@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >The "main" version seems to be in Java (why?! What is wrong with >HTML?), but there is also a PDF version that may be more convenient. Odd; I have Java (and Javascript) disabled, and I didn't notice any problems in that respect. The deal diagrams take a while to download, and that may be what caused the problem. I didn't notice the PDF version; may give it a try. 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 Fri Nov 5 03:59:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:59:14 +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 DAA12877 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:59:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-16-193.inter.net.il [213.8.16.193]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA09981; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:58:40 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3821BB4E.155B7EBA@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 18:58:54 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roger Pewick CC: blml Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <005f01bf2557$1e222580$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <19991102185509.273.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think your approach - as I understood it - is very wrong and is the source of many troubles. I believe that some basic definitions and notions about Laws , Ethics , Conduct , Procedures would be told to the pupils during the 3rd or 4th lesson of a bridge course for the very beginners. thing you "learn" during the 6-7 years since your are born , before you go to primary school , are the best educational issues and a person remembers them and implement them the best way (s/he is able to..). I also agree that even very advanced people wouldn't be compelled to learn all the Laws , Procedures etc. as a national level TD should , but they should have wide enough knowledge , especially about conduct & ethics in order to be able to let run a contest smoothly... Dany P.S. I hope I'll find the time to send my remarks about the general purpose of Alert Procedure. Roger Pewick wrote: > > I might suggest that an appropriate alert procedure would be one based upon > a specification that the beginning player should not have to even know of > the existence of an AP in order to comply. In other words, it is the use of > artificial means that conveys a duty on its user, not his presence in the > event. The expectation that the novice must have the same knowledge as the > master in order to comply is a large source of disenchantment with > tournament. > > I should think that if all players were made to realize that the declaring > side must recount all information passed before the opening lead that 70% of > all questions during the auction would disappear, that defenders will defend > as best they can, and the declaring side will become more skillful in their > bidding, not to mention that disclosure in the future will tend to reach > toward the desired expectation. And did I include that MI will tend to be > uncovered expeditiously that a fair result might better be obtained? > > Such is not the state of the world nor its inclination, but it may be > worthwhile considering. > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marvin L. French > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 11:23 AM > Subject: Fw: Suggestions for Alert Procedure > > > BLMLers might be interested in the following. C&C stands for Competitions > > and Conventions, an advisory committee for the ACBL Board of Directors.: > > > > From: Marvin L. French > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 11:49 AM > > > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > > > > As Rich Colker recently suggested, I am forwarding a few suggestions > > > > for consideration by the C&C Committee in Boston. > > > > > > > > The current Alert Procedure (AP) is much too complicated for most > > > > players, and even for most tournament directors. I would like to > > > > suggest that emphasis be placed on the creation of simple rules that > > > > have few exceptions. If this means that some "expected" meanings > > > > will have to be Alerted, that doesn't do any harm, although meanings > > > > that are nearly universal among players at all levels can certainly > > > > be the subject of an exception. Here are some suggested rules that > > > > accord with this philosophy. > > > > > > > > 1. Alert all non-penalty doubles when partner has previously acted, > > > > with the exception of ordinary negative doubles. > > > > [These are defined by the current Alert Procedure -- mlf] > > > > > > > > > > 2. After one's side has bid notrump, alert all non-penalty doubles. > > > > No exceptions. > > > > > > > > 3. When responding or rebidding, Alert possible bypasses of a major > > > > suit that could be shown at the one level. No exceptions. Currently > > > > 1C=1D=2C bypassing a major is not Alertable, nor is 1H=1NT bypassing > > > > four spades, nor is 1C=1H=1NT bypassing four spades. Opener's rebid > > > > of 1NT that could bypass a major is Alertable, but not a 2NT (or > > > > 3NT?) rebid. That's too complicated. > > > > > > > > 4. Alert one-over-one responses that promise at least five cards in > > > > the suit. No exceptions. Currently 1H=1S promising five is not > > > > Alertable. > > > > > > > > 5. Require that any semi-forcing 1NT response be Announced > > > > (currently not Announceable if made by a passed hand). No > > > > exceptions. Alternatively, do not require the Announcement of > > > > semi-forcing 1NT responses, since it is standard practice to pass > > > > 1NT only with a balanced minimum. > > > > > > 6. Alert all non-penalty doubles of notrump bids. No exceptions. > > > > > > > At the other end of the spectrum, one highly unusual call is not > > > > currently Alertable. I suggest: > > > > > > > > -- Alert all natural two-level strong two bids. > > > > > > > > The Alertablilty of 4NT bids is way too complicated. Simplification > > > > is a must. > > > > > > > > I am also in favor of increasing the number of Announceable bids, > > > > but have no specific recommendations. Announcements save time and > > > > avoid the problem of selective questioning (based on HCP or holding > > > > in the suit) when a bid is Alerted. > > > > > > > > Finally, I would like to see the concept of "self-alerting calls" be > > > > eliminated. The AP applies to all players in sectional and higher > > > > games, and most club games, but many of those participating in these > > > > games have no knowledge of what constitutes a "self-alerting" call. > > > > > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 03:59:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:59:56 +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 DAA12892 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:59:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-16-193.inter.net.il [213.8.16.193]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA10185 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:59:32 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3821BB84.BBD59A96@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 18:59:48 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - October 99 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML members Here is the 14th release of the new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST (cats) Linda Trent - Panda , Gus (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Sammy (3) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) Roger Pewick - Louie (none) Phillip Mendelshon- Visa , Mr. Peabody (none) Eric Favager - Sophie (6) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 9 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 05:25:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 05:25:21 +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 FAA13106 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 05:25:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:25:03 -0800 Message-ID: <019101bf26f1$eab70520$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001401bf26c7$ba1d6820$4ea793c3@pacific> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:23:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: David Stevenson wrote > > > > It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. > > > +=+ A sweeping statement. It would require > simultaneously a rejection of all special > understandings. Now I express no personal > opinion but I have known many players who > would regard that as a tremendous gain to > their enjoyment of the game. ~G~ +=+ > Having played in such an environment for many years, I give my strong support to that statement. Everyone here in California at one time employed more or less the same Culbertson-based system. You could play with a pickup partner with no prior discussion. There were no ccs, no Alerts, and few questions. Bidding was an exercise in ingenuity, with few conventional crutches. Overcalls were often hit with a penalty double, so there were many more exciting one and two-level doubled contracts. The emphasis was on good card play, not on conventions. Misuse of UI was mostly controlled by peer pressure, not by calling the TD, and MI was practically unknown. I loved that game. Each month our San Diego Unit had a one-session afternoon Monthly Masterpoint Game (a whole masterpoint for first!), followed by a Winners' Game in the evening for those who had done well during the preceding month (no novices!). Another Sunday was used for a two-session Unit championship. We had a beautiful 26-table Individual Championship in the early 60s. One's regular partner was placed at the same position in the other section, which made for great conversations when comparing scores. Everyone knew what system to play (standard!). People talked about that event for years, but such a game would be impractical now. Today there are no two-session Unit events, except for NABC qualifying games, and no Masters, Open, Mixed, Men's, or Women's pair championships. Every game is a stratified open, one session. Membership is down, and attendance is down. The old "perpetual" trophies for the pair championships are gathering dust in a cabinet, no longer maintained. One such, engraved twice (1957, 1958) with my great pickup partner Morris Portugal, is missing from the cabinet. Guess where it is! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 06:25:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 06:25:47 +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 GAA13239 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 06:25:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:25:29 -0800 Message-ID: <01ac01bf26fa$5c37bf20$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911041521.KAA23875@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:23:44 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > > You will find that Rich Colker doesn't think that much of my ability > > to play the game. > > I think David must be referring to an upcoming book (Orlando?). He is, > regrettably, not included as a commentator for the Chicago book. > > The very first appeal in the Chicago book features a totally illegal > ruling by the AC. (No, not avg+/avg-.) The illegality was an assigned score for the NOs based on a normal result, instead of the most favorable result that was likely absent the infraction. As is common, the AC were influenced by the incorrect belief that UI is the infraction, not the misuse of the UI. For non-members of the ACBL, this case is Appeals Case 2 in the Daily Bulletins of the Chicago NABC, viewable by anyone on the ACBL web site. > Ron Gerard explains very well. > Colker lambastes the AC on a judgment matter (one which I believe the AC > got right, but as usual there is room for disagreement about bridge > judgment) but seems to approve the legal blunder. > A few pages later, concerning case #2, the consensus of commentators was that the AC decision was very poor. (This is Appeals Case 7 in the Daily Bulletins of the Chicago NABC). For one thing, the AC ruled that E/W had not been damaged by the N/S misuse of UI, and then socked N/S with a PP for misuse of UI. This use of PPs to augment L16, apparently in the belief that L16 is not sufficiently harsh, has been commented on by me (perhaps too often) in the past, so I say no more. Other issues involved in the case are too complex to include here. The case has been discussed before on BLML, I believe, but Rich Colker's statement that E/W at the very least should have been "protected" with an adjustment of Average Plus or minus 500, whichever is least favorable, was a surprise to me. Evidently my frequent railings in the past against such hybrid score adjustments, surely illegal, have had no effect, although they have not been used (as I recall) in recent NABCs (but are quite frequent in our local regionals and sectionals in Southern California). The ACBLScor program includes provisions for such score adjustments (artificial avg+/- or an assigned score, whichever is worse/better). The option should be deleted from the program, although it was defended by Rich in private correspondence with me, lost in my disk crash this year. I can't remember his arguments, but surely it is illegal in the absence of L12C3. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 06:27:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 06:27:16 +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 GAA13254 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 06:27:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:26:59 -0800 Message-ID: <01b101bf26fa$9194f0c0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911041521.KAA23875@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:26:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > > You will find that Rich Colker doesn't think that much of my ability > > to play the game. > > I think David must be referring to an upcoming book (Orlando?). He is, > regrettably, not included as a commentator for the Chicago book. > > The very first appeal in the Chicago book features a totally illegal > ruling by the AC. (No, not avg+/avg-.) The illegality was an assigned score for the NOs based on a normal result, instead of the most favorable result that was likely absent the infraction. As is common, the AC were influenced by the incorrect belief that UI is the infraction, not the misuse of the UI. For non-members of the ACBL, this case is Appeals Case 2 in the Daily Bulletins of the Chicago NABC, viewable by anyone on the ACBL web site. > Ron Gerard explains very well. > Colker lambastes the AC on a judgment matter (one which I believe the AC > got right, but as usual there is room for disagreement about bridge > judgment) but seems to approve the legal blunder. > A few pages later, concerning case #2, the consensus of commentators was that the AC decision was very poor. (This is Appeals Case 7 in the Daily Bulletins of the Chicago NABC). For one thing, the AC ruled that E/W had not been damaged by the N/S misuse of UI, and then socked N/S with a PP for misuse of UI. This use of PPs to augment L16, apparently in the belief that L16 is not sufficiently harsh, has been commented on by me (perhaps too often) in the past, so I say no more. Other issues involved in the case are too complex to include here. The case has been discussed before on BLML, I believe, but Rich Colker's statement that E/W at the very least should have been "protected" with an adjustment of Average Plus or minus 500, whichever is least favorable, was a surprise to me. Evidently my frequent railings in the past against such hybrid score adjustments, surely illegal, have had no effect, although they have not been used (as I recall) in recent NABCs (but are quite frequent in our local regionals and sectionals in Southern California). The ACBLScor program includes provisions for such score adjustments (artificial avg+/- or an assigned score, whichever is worse/better). The option should be deleted from the program, although it was defended by Rich in private correspondence with me, lost in my disk crash this year. I can't remember his arguments, but surely it is illegal in the absence of L12C3. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 06:50:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 06:50:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe10.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA13300 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 06:50:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 98241 invoked by uid 65534); 4 Nov 1999 19:49:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19991104194941.98240.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.162.45] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <001401bf26c7$ba1d6820$4ea793c3@pacific> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:46:59 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 6:55 AM Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure > > Grattan Endicott ================================ > "When the elephant becomes aggressive, > don't argue .... go!" - 'A Secretary's Handbook'. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 04 November 1999 11:36 > Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure > > > > > > It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. > > > +=+ A sweeping statement. It would require > simultaneously a rejection of all special > understandings. Now I express no personal > opinion but I have known many players who > would regard that as a tremendous gain to > their enjoyment of the game. ~G~ +=+ > As a monkey extracts joy from the punching of typewriter keys so may a participant extract joy from the capture of a trick by a randomly played card. That participants may employ communication to ascertain the similarities of previous problems that distinguish the uniqueness that each hand beholds must be the most enduring attraction to the pastime. As the communist concept established by the Pilgrims during their first winter at Plymouth Rock that each person has the same right to suffer and die as his neighbor, so does the concept of the players that Grattan speaks of who feel is their hapless state that opponents do not employ the same terrible methods that they do. Personally, I believe that communication is a legitimate method for the purpose of trying to do better than the next guy. But I see it as less than fair play to use conventional devices that tax one's own ability to convey only the announced information. I would think that this has much to do with the objection of the players named by Grattan to the widespread use of conventions by others. And last, I do not see how it follows that forgoing the use of alerts makes requisite the foregoing of conventions [artificial or not]. I think that Anne is close to the mark and perhaps David is not so close. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 09:57:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:57:44 +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 JAA13594 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:57:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:57:23 -0800 Message-ID: <01c501bf2717$f5da03a0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553124DAA@mail.azure-tech.com> Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:56:16 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > I would be curious whether anyone has any concrete information > available about both the printing cost and publishing costs of > materials such as the bridge Laws and the NABC case books. In > particular, I would be extremely interested in seeing what percentage > of the total cost of production is associated with printing physical > media as compared to developing the intellectual property. > If Marvin is correct and the primary reason not to publish on-line > versions of the Laws was the fear of losing money that would be > incurred specifically from printing the physical media, then I would > respectfully suggest perhaps the time has come to dispense with > centralized physical publication. > Rather, on line publication should become the default way of > communicating information. > Individuals who believe that they require hard copy of the > information in question have any number of different options to print > whatever information that they chose. > > The overall goal in publishing these materials should be to ensure > that the requisite information can be distributed to as many > interested parties as possible. > > My gut feel is that - > > Of the set of individuals who will actual consult the Laws or read a > case book, a large enough subset either have direct access to the > Internet or have indirect access through an acquaintance that an > on-line publication scheme is preferable to physically printing the > information. > The "physical" Laws are much more handy than computer printer output, especially for TDs and others who must refer to them constantly. The Laws are available in both hardcover and paperback. That makes sense when you see how worn some TDs' hardcover books get. Just remove the copyright notice, it's too mean. Imagine, it is illegal to download the Laws, or any part of them, from the ACBL web site without ACBL's permission. The NABC Appeals casebooks' printing could perhaps be omitted, with public access to them on the internet, but downloading and printing would be such a bother that I hope the ACBL continues to publish them in book form. If it is costing them more than they get from sales, they could do a lot better in promoting them. Most ACBL TDs I talk to are not aware of the casebooks, which should be a part of their continuing education. I doubt very much that publishing them publicly on the ACBL web site would have a significant effect on profits from book sales. Are overseas sales that great? I suspect there is another reason for keeping them semi-private, but y'all will have to guess what that is. Surely the current Laws for a game played by millions ought to be internet-purchasable from both Amazon and Barnes&Noble. They have every other book imaginable. I just bought *Marriages in Greene County, Tennesee, 1783-1868*, not a book that is in great demand, from Amazon. Amazon has the 1973 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, two editions out of date. The message regarding this book is: "This title is out of print. Although it is no longer available from the publisher, we'll query our network of used bookstores for you and send an update within one to two weeks." Someone should tell them that the current 1997 version *is*available from the ACBL (or is it?). ACBL's chief bridge teacher (or whatever her title is), Audrey Grant, has a number of her books listed by Amazon, so I see no reason why the Laws can't be. Another ACBL publication listed on Amazon.com is *Adventures in Duplicate Bridge : An Introduction to the American Contract Bridge League and Duplicate Bridge for the Beginning Player* Same message, also out of print. Hmm, I see it in the current ACBL Fall/Winter Catalog 1999/2000. It's only $2.50, $1.00 to club owners, ACBL Accredited Teachers, Units and Districts. It explains the "nuances of the game" to "newcomers, novice players, social, rubber and up to 2nd year duplicate players." I'd GIVE it to Barnes&Noble and Amazon, who have millions of potential purchasers. Barnes&Noble do not have any books listed on the Laws of either duplicate or rubber bridge, and no Audrey Grant books. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 13:02:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:02:00 +1100 (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 NAA13872 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:01:51 +1100 (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 11jYhA-000D9b-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:01:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:59:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: careless v irrational In-Reply-To: <0ra2OxBspXI4EwMp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <0ra2OxBspXI4EwMp@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes snip > > So on [say] one hand a session someone does not cash from the top >down. Now, on the 7000 occasions that this has occurred, maybe some of >them were beginners who could not tell a grape form a coconut. But in >many cases there are other reasons not to cash from the top down, like >playing the nearest card to the thumb, or they like to signal to dummy >[some do], or they want to gauge an expression by getting a particular >effect. In many cases you would really insult a player by telling him >is play is irrational: he would point out that there is no rationality >to playing the highest card from cards that are known to be winners. > > All right, my experience of the game is valueless, you say. I beg to >differ. > holding KQJT8653 facing 94 tonight I lead the 6, 7, 9, A. Back in a couple of tricks later I now played the 3 to the 4 (no bridge merit involved). One doesn't often get to draw the last trump with the 3 and 4 and it seemed worthy of mention at the table. As it happens it was neither careless nor irrational (and I hadn't claimed). But suppose I had 1) been asleep and seen the 2 as the 7, and 2) claimed? Might I not have tried the 3? I've certainly gone down in cold contracts trying to score the D7 as part of a claim "dummy's high and the D7 takes the last trick" when dummy isn't high. (Cost me 2 beers btw). Who can judge whether a player *might* or *might not* lead the 9 from J9x? I generally think they *might* and award a trick to the non- claimers 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 Nov 5 13:11:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:11:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13893 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:11:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from p8fs04a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.116.144] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11jYq4-0005DX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:10:52 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:10:57 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2732$ff3b7d00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 11:36 AM Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure >Anne Jones wrote: > >>I wonder why we started alerting at all! Believing as I do, that a well >>completed CC is far better disclosure than any alert whe meaning of which >> is not queried, I would advocate the abolition of the alert procedure and >>the >>enforcement of the CC regulations. >>Beginners would be happy, they may not know what is going on, but alerts >>do not change that for them. The wrinklies never needed it anyway. Good >>tournament players know when and how to ask, so this leaves the middle >>of the road BLs, who would soon find something else to practice their >>interogatory skills on. > > I have always wondered what level of player I am - now I know! > > No, Anne, you are wrong. I played a lot of bridge before alerts and >there were a myriad of problems solved by them. I also remember Bridge without alerts.(does that surprise you?) I remember it was a time when people enjoyed their Bridge, went to congresses (not just green pointed swiss teams events) and had fun. Bridge is not like that these days. Clubs in my area had to turn away visitors if there was no room. There is little problem with room these days. In fact as a TD I can no longer put boards out for the first 13 tables knowing they will be full. As Marvin said, the perpetual trophy events are so badly attended that in Wales we have difficulty getting 3 tables to run a heat in many of our clubs.Even an area heat struggles to get seven tables in some mens and ladies events. I am sure there are many reasons for the decline, but if the alerting procedure has got anything to do with it, then we should look at it again. > No-one would know when >to ask questions. People gain through playing unexpected fancy >conventions. The game would get less popular because people would feel >cheated more. >The older players do like alerts when someone comes along >playing something fancy. the tournament players certainly need them to >save continuous asking of players. I do not play Stayman with my regular partner. We are the only pair I know of in South Wales who do not. Our 2C bid is alerted in the same way as a Stayman 2C is. Our system is disclosed in large print on the front of our CC. Players still feel cheated when dummy hits the table I can assure you. > > It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. If I understand correctly, you feel strongly that partnerships who get two suited overcalls wrong should automatically suffer penalty. Usually when these bids go wrong, the problems which arise are due to UI, more often than MI. It is usually the bidder that gets the bid wrong. Granted, partnership experience of their having gone wrong before has an important contribution, but do you not think that as long as opps have the explanation on a CC in front of them, the problems would not be less if none of these sequences were alerted. When we were allowed to ask opps not to alert, I found that my opps systems went wrong far more often, and I always asked good pairs playing complex systems not to alert. It paid many dividends. I think that at least bringing that regulation back would be advantagous. Similarly the regulation that bids above game level (or was it 4NT?) should not be alerted, I think damaged only the bidding side. No David, I think that there is a need to rethink this procedure. I am going to recommend to our club that we have a movement once a week where CCs are mandatory, but where alerting is not allowed. I wonder if it will be well accepted. Just so that you don't think I am totally anti establishment; I think Stop cards are a good thing. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 13:50:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:50:27 +1100 (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 NAA13994 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:50:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from pc9s13a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.93.202] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11jZRf-0007BH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:49:43 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:50:01 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2738$746e49e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 2:35 AM Subject: Re: careless v irrational >In article <0ra2OxBspXI4EwMp@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes > >snip >> >> So on [say] one hand a session someone does not cash from the top >>down. Now, on the 7000 occasions that this has occurred, maybe some of >>them were beginners who could not tell a grape form a coconut. But in >>many cases there are other reasons not to cash from the top down, like >>playing the nearest card to the thumb, or they like to signal to dummy >>[some do], or they want to gauge an expression by getting a particular >>effect. In many cases you would really insult a player by telling him >>is play is irrational: he would point out that there is no rationality >>to playing the highest card from cards that are known to be winners. >> >> All right, my experience of the game is valueless, you say. I beg to >>differ. >> >holding KQJT8653 facing 94 tonight I lead the 6, 7, 9, A. Back in a >couple of tricks later I now played the 3 to the 4 (no bridge merit >involved). One doesn't often get to draw the last trump with the 3 and 4 >and it seemed worthy of mention at the table. As it happens it was >neither careless nor irrational (and I hadn't claimed). But suppose I >had 1) been asleep and seen the 2 as the 7, and 2) claimed? Might I >not have tried the 3? > >I've certainly gone down in cold contracts trying to score the D7 as >part of a claim "dummy's high and the D7 takes the last trick" when >dummy isn't high. (Cost me 2 beers btw). > >Who can judge whether a player *might* or *might not* lead the 9 from >J9x? I generally think they *might* and award a trick to the non- >claimers It strikes me that you are playin silly b******s, not bridge. Those that attempt to be so flamboyant deserve their come uppances. Those who claim in all seriousness, do not. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 14:27:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:27:01 +1100 (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 OAA14056 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:26:52 +1100 (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 11ja1Q-000Kg1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:26:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:00:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fouled Board 24 hours later References: <002a01bf2692$be70afc0$426199d0@john> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director wrote: >>I had an inquiry the other day concerning the late discovery of a fouled >>board. The game was a two session pairs of two 13 table sections. After >>announcing the winners and awarding prizes, the TD responded to a query the >>next day and discovered that one of the boards in the second session was >>misduplicated in one of the sections. >>When the game is rescored according to established fouled board procedures, >>1st and 2nd place are reversed. Do you change the results or does this fall >>under the "Correction Period"? > > It falls under "Correction Period". The idea of the correction period >is that you need a limit where things become unchangeable. Before the >Correction Period applied, what would you do if someone challenges the >results a day later? a week? a month? three years? > > Having said that there seems to me to be something in the idea that >there are some things for which a longer Correction Period seems a good >idea. The half-hour after scores are published is probably enough for >rulings and appeals in a competition where people stay for the results >[in a club where they do not, the start of next week's session is >probably best]. However, gross scoring errors have often been >considered a matter for which a longer period would seem suitable. >Perhaps misboardings also. > >>Keep in mind that this is our error, not the players. > > Not relevant, I'm afraid. The whole idea of a Correction Period is to >end the competition whatever, and whoever's fault it is. > > I think the principle is right, but I wonder how many SOs consider the >ramifications, and how long the Correction Period is? Our local league >has 24 hours for rulings and 48 hours for appeals: seems about right to >me. I think I should like to add something to this, since I have been involved in or heard of similar cases before. The above is the "legal" solution. I think that, where the organisers are at fault, some efforts should be made to mitigate the adverse effects. Someone else has suggested various methods. Certainly, giving two first prizes is a good idea. But you want to be careful in these situations before you start talking about the real winners. The real winners are those that are stated to be by the Laws and Regulations of the game. Any suggestion that a pair who has been announced as winners and retains that position for whatever reason [such as errors found outside a Correction Period] must not be subjected to personal attack. To do so is horrendous - and always seems to happen. -- 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 Nov 5 14:27:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:27:03 +1100 (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 OAA14058 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:26:55 +1100 (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 11ja1V-000Kg6-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:26:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:53:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members References: <199911041521.KAA23875@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199911041521.KAA23875@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 >> You will find that Rich Colker doesn't think that much of my ability >> to play the game. >I think David must be referring to an upcoming book (Orlando?). He is, >regrettably, not included as a commentator for the Chicago book. Damn. That's the danger of making assumptions. Orlando was published a few weeks ago, I am told one has just been published on the Web, people get talking about how to get a copy, and I assume ....... -- 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 Nov 5 14:55:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:55:25 +1100 (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 OAA14111 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:55:18 +1100 (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 11jaSy-000N2Z-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:55:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:53:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: careless v irrational In-Reply-To: <01bf2738$746e49e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf2738$746e49e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes snip >>holding KQJT8653 facing 94 tonight I lead the 6, 7, 9, A. Back in a >>couple of tricks later I now played the 3 to the 4 (no bridge merit >>involved). One doesn't often get to draw the last trump with the 3 and 4 >>and it seemed worthy of mention at the table. As it happens it was >>neither careless nor irrational (and I hadn't claimed). But suppose I >>had 1) been asleep and seen the 2 as the 7, and 2) claimed? Might I >>not have tried the 3? >> >>I've certainly gone down in cold contracts trying to score the D7 as >>part of a claim "dummy's high and the D7 takes the last trick" when >>dummy isn't high. (Cost me 2 beers btw). >> >>Who can judge whether a player *might* or *might not* lead the 9 from >>J9x? I generally think they *might* and award a trick to the non- >>claimers > >It strikes me that you are playin silly b******s, not bridge. >Those that attempt to be so flamboyant deserve their come uppances. >Those who claim in all seriousness, do not. >Anne > > I always play bridge seriously. That I can find a "game within a game" does not detract from my desire to win. Proddy and I play snap, poker, bommalommas and the D7 as a routine part of our game. It considerably helps concentration and our game is probably better for it. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 16:09:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:09:40 +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 QAA14235 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:09:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:09:08 -0800 Message-ID: <020c01bf274b$e439ffe0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Appeals Cross-Reference Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:08:24 -0800 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 Steve Willner thanked me for mentioning that Chicago casebook Appeals Case 1 was Case 2 in the Chicago NABC Daily Bulletin (DB). Perhaps he and others would find a complete cross-reference handy. The DB is viewable for all on the ACBL web site, so those without access to the "members-only" pages, where the case book is published, might find a cross-reference handy. The DBs' cases are also shown in a friendlier way on the great Federation Suisse de Bridge web site (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html, including one extra case (#6) I could not find in the DBs. Casebook Daily Bulletin #1 #2 2 7 3 6 4 1 5 3 6 Missing, but #5 on the Suisse web site 7 9 8 to 12 Not published in DBs 13 4 14 8 15 to 21 Not published in DBs Case #22 to 25 in the casebook are from the 1998 International Team Trials Case #26 is from the Canadian National Team Championship Case #27 to 34 are from the 1998 World Bridge Championships. Space and time constraints do not permit all the cases to be printed in the DBs. The numbering systems are different because the DB numbers them as they are ready to print, and the casebooks sort the cases by type (Tempo, UI, MI, Claims) first, to make it easier for someone to find a case later on. To avoid confusion, let's all use the casebook numbering system when referring to cases. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 17:44:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:47:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14383 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:47:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP254.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.16]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA26175 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:47:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991104233550.009f3e20@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 23:45:33 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Disagreement about MI Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This may strike many of you as a "WTP?" question, but another director and I disagree over it, and maybe you can help us learn a thing or two. Club MP game, players at this table not particularly strong ACBL rules EW vul S dealer KQTx Tx Kx AKxxx xxxx Axx Qxx KJ AJTx Qxxxxx QT Jx Jx Axxxxx x xxxx S W N E 2H P 2NT P 3H* P 4H AP 3H was explained as Ogust, showing a good suit and a minimum hand overall. A spade was led to the ace, and East returned the JH, hoping to confuse declarer and get a trump trick in addition to the two pointed aces. South's diamond went away on the spades. After the hand it was learned that the actual N-S agreement is that 3H merely denies a side ace or king; they don't play Ogust. South did not correct North's explanation before the play period. E contended that, given the proper explanation, he would have simply returned a diamond at trick 2, hoping for maybe a trump and a club in the wash; the result would have been down 1. Rulings, comments, thoughts? Thanks in advance, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 18:49:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:49:56 +1100 (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 SAA14811 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:49:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p184-tnt4.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.103.184]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id UAA32428 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 20:49:42 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19991105204344.007f9720@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 20:43:44 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: re: careles v irrational Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: I have been playing bridge for forty years. I play about 180 days a year, so I am talking of maybe 160,000 hands. Probably more: I used to play more frequently. In that time I have seen people cashing suits when they "know" there are none out. They often cash them from the top down. Quite often they don't. So on [say] one hand a session someone does not cash from the top down. Now, on the 7000 occasions that this has occurred, maybe some of them were beginners who could not tell a grape form a coconut. But in many cases there are other reasons not to cash from the top down, like playing the nearest card to the thumb, or they like to signal to dummy [some do], or they want to gauge an expression by getting a particular effect. In many cases you would really insult a player by telling him is play is irrational: he would point out that there is no rationality to playing the highest card from cards that are known to be winners. All right, my experience of the game is valueless, you say. I beg to differ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Of course I'm not trying to say that your experience of the game is valueless. * :> * Just trying to say that the frequency of an observed occurrence doesn't provide evidence of whether it was careless or irrational. It certainly strikes me as irrational to signal dummy though, whether done intentionally or out of habit. Could you say that they carelessly signalled dummy? Patrick Carter Auckland New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 20:23:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 20:23:09 +1100 (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 UAA15170 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 20:23:00 +1100 (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 KAA03287; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:22:46 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199911050922.KAA03287@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, 5 Nov 1999 10:22:27 +0100 Subject: Re: Fouled Board 24 hours later Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: johnmacg@networksgy.com X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <002a01bf2692$be70afc0$426199d0@john> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Mac Gregor wrote: > I had an inquiry the other day concerning the late discovery of a fouled > board. The game was a two session pairs of two 13 table sections. After > announcing the winners and awarding prizes, the TD responded to a query > the next day and discovered that one of the boards in the second session > was misduplicated in one of the sections. When the game is rescored > according to established fouled board procedures, 1st and 2nd place are > reversed. Do you change the results or does this fall under the > "Correction Period"? Keep in mind that this is our error, not the players. Do the players not have a responsibility to check the hand records after the tournament? There must have been some strange-looking results on this board. I suggest you announce next time that duplication errors and misboardings fall expressly under the "Correction Period". In the tournaments I direct this works all right. For this case, I agree with Norman's solution. Cheers, JP From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 20:23:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 20:23:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15177 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 20:23:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.69] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11jfVX-000HKc-00; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:18:07 +0000 Message-ID: <006701bf276e$a5496640$685108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Martin Sinot" , "'Konrad Ciborowski'" , "'BLML'" Subject: Re: Should we consider it a revoke? Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:15:38 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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' ; 'BLML' Date: 04 November 1999 16:24 Subject: RE: Should we consider it a revoke? >> >> Why not change the Law 25 into this one: >> >>- a change of bid is inadvertent if followed by the player's words >> "Oh Sh**t" >>- it is not inadvertent otherwise >> >> Diricting would become much simpler :)) >> > +=+ I have been wondering if we should add something into the definitions in the Law Book. It is important to capitalize on precedents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 22:15:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:15:42 +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 WAA15587 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:15:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-16-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.16.188]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA14350 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:15:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <382137B9.F6B6F32D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 08:37:29 +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: Standard of Proof for Misbid? References: <3.0.1.32.19991027223943.012ee174@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991101085347.00715850@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991102085656.006a56b0@pop.cais.com> <005e01bf2557$1c33c300$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Suppose you play with a pickup partner at short notice in an ACBL > tourney. The bidding goes 1S 2C x. You have not discussed it. What do > you do? > > While, in fact, the answer may be obvious here, it certainly gets more > difficult as the sequences get more complex. Even though the ACBL > defines an unalertable sequence, the question still remains, what do you > do if you do not know? In England/Wales we have certainly said that if > you believe it to be one of alertable options, then you alert. Ok, > that's obvious enough. But what if you think it is one of options, some > alertable, some not? What if you think it is probably not alertable > [like 1S 2C x maybe] but you are not sure? What if you haven't a clue? > Well David, the answer is surprisingly simple. You decide what it (probably) means, intend to inform your opponents of that meaning when they ask, and alert or not according to that meaning. When they do ask, DWS will probably say something like "We have not discussed this, but from general principles and the scant knowledge I have of my partner I have come to the conclusion that it is more likely to be A than B", while a follower of the dWs will say "A". Now David, let's come back to the original question. Suppose the TD rules from the evidence presented afterwards, and the hand, that partner intended it as B. How do you rule against DWS ? How do you rule against dWs ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 5 23:50:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA16008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:50:08 +1100 (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 XAA16003 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:50:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:49:35 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA06715; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:37:56 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Craig Senior'" , "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Should we consider it a revoke? Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:26:06 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Do you mean this if it were in TFLB only American Td's would bother to read >it? > >Or that the ACBL would declare it an illegal convention and penalise under >ZT? > >-- >Craig No, I was simply referring to an earlier post of Michael Amos, where he stated: -- Perhaps East should try the magic words "Oh S**t" - it might work (on an American TD anyway) :)) -- Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 00:09:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:09:47 +1100 (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 AAA16057 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:09:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:09:10 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA07275 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:04:32 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Fouled Board 24 hours later Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:52:41 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: >John Mac Gregor wrote: >> I had an inquiry the other day concerning the late discovery of a fouled >> board. The game was a two session pairs of two 13 table sections. After >> announcing the winners and awarding prizes, the TD responded to a query >> the next day and discovered that one of the boards in the second session >> was misduplicated in one of the sections. When the game is rescored >> according to established fouled board procedures, 1st and 2nd place are >> reversed. Do you change the results or does this fall under the >> "Correction Period"? Keep in mind that this is our error, not the players. > >Do the players not have a responsibility to check the hand records >after the tournament? There must have been some strange-looking >results on this board. I suggest you announce next time that >duplication errors and misboardings fall expressly under the >"Correction Period". In the tournaments I direct this works all right. >For this case, I agree with Norman's solution. > >Cheers, JP Not necessarily. Usually, these hand records only contain scores, not contracts. It is possible that the scores on the fouled board look very similar to the correct ones. Also, in a large tournament, strange things sometimes happen, causing weird scores on an apparently simple board. I do agree, however, that this falls under the correction period, which is over. On the other hand, I think it is not fair to the real winners not to correct this. So I too agree with Norman's solution. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 02:17:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 02:17:37 +1100 (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 CAA16582 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 02:17:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-101.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.101]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA02407 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:17:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3822D087.2B283F93@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 13:41:43 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > holding KQJT8653 facing 94 tonight I lead the 6, 7, 9, A. Back in a > couple of tricks later I now played the 3 to the 4 (no bridge merit > involved). One doesn't often get to draw the last trump with the 3 and 4 > and it seemed worthy of mention at the table. As it happens it was > neither careless nor irrational (and I hadn't claimed). But suppose I > had 1) been asleep and seen the 2 as the 7, and 2) claimed? Might I > not have tried the 3? > > I've certainly gone down in cold contracts trying to score the D7 as > part of a claim "dummy's high and the D7 takes the last trick" when > dummy isn't high. (Cost me 2 beers btw). > > Who can judge whether a player *might* or *might not* lead the 9 from > J9x? I generally think they *might* and award a trick to the non- > claimers > The fact that you had a rational reason to play the 3 to the 4 does not make the 3 a rational play from KQJT853. Sorry. No one does such a thing unless they are 101% certain that it does not matter, and then only if they have a (funny) reason for it. But anyway, I believe we are talking about totally irrelevant points here. When has anyone ever had to rule a claim with declarer having J95 and thinking they were all out, but wrong about precisely the 10 ? Well, when that happens, I don't mind you ruling against the fellow. So FWIW, count me in the careless camp on that one. But I don't think it is worth a lot. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 02:17:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 02:17:36 +1100 (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 CAA16583 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 02:17:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-101.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.101]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA02422 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:17:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3822D267.BE3D74EA@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 13:49:43 +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: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <01bf260e$e5a42240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. > I agree with a statement of DWS. No, this is not a first. Can I make a suggestion. We should draft a list of general principles concerning alert procedures. Not a general alert procedure, certainly not, because standards are far too different in different countries. But general principles. I propose one : Asking bids, in common situations, should not be alerted solely based on the answering scheme. Answers to them should be alerted if they differ from the standard meaning. Ex : 2NT-3Cl not alertable, no matter if it is Stayman, Baron, Puppet or anything. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 03:01:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:01:11 +1100 (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 DAA16716 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:01:01 +1100 (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 11jllj-000Bty-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:59:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:39:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careles v irrational References: <3.0.3.32.19991105204344.007f9720@pop.ihug.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19991105204344.007f9720@pop.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Patrick wrote: >It certainly strikes me as irrational to signal dummy though, >whether done intentionally or out of habit. Could you say >that they carelessly signalled dummy? It may strike you as irrational, but players do it. The idea is that dummy will relax which is good for the partnership, if he knows that a contract is making, no worries. A top Swedish pair used to do it, and once the defence noticed the signal, interpreted it, and produced a very dangerous defence as a result. Unfortunately, declarer knew that his opponents [friends of his] knew his signal so he had psyched! We must always remember that different people play different ways. Observation and experience are helpful. For example, I can tell you two mistakes in bidding that are *very* common in this country. When playing against medium players I allow that knowledge to affect my actions even when I do not know the opponents. Similarly, I know that people do not always cash known winners from the top down - I don't always myself, for one thing. I consider it to be rational because they normally have a reason for not doing so - thus it is rational. -- 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 Nov 6 03:01:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:01:12 +1100 (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 DAA16717 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:01:01 +1100 (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 11jlla-000Btz-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:59:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:32:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI References: <4.2.0.58.19991104233550.009f3e20@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991104233550.009f3e20@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: >This may strike many of you as a "WTP?" question, but another director and >I disagree over it, and maybe you can help us learn a thing or two. > >Club MP game, players at this table not particularly strong >ACBL rules >EW vul >S dealer > > KQTx > Tx > Kx > AKxxx >xxxx Axx >Qxx KJ >AJTx Qxxxxx >QT Jx > Jx > Axxxxx > x > xxxx > >S W N E >2H P 2NT P >3H* P 4H AP > >3H was explained as Ogust, showing a good suit and a minimum hand overall. >A spade was led to the ace, and East returned the JH, hoping to confuse >declarer and get a trump trick in addition to the two pointed aces. South's >diamond went away on the spades. > >After the hand it was learned that the actual N-S agreement is that 3H >merely denies a side ace or king; they don't play Ogust. South did not >correct North's explanation before the play period. > >E contended that, given the proper explanation, he would have simply >returned a diamond at trick 2, hoping for maybe a trump and a club in the >wash; the result would have been down 1. > >Rulings, comments, thoughts? Adjust, wtp, says Quango. Also make clear to S his requirement to correct before the opening lead. I can imagine the BLs making a meal of whether East deserves an adjustment, because of his "misdefence". He did not do anything stupid, and with a correct explanation he might have got it right - and that's good enough. -- 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 Nov 6 03:30:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:30:40 +1100 (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 DAA17118 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:30:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by smtp10.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA20715; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 08:30:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by coho.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA04060; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 08:30:20 -0800 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 08:30:19 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Brian Baresch cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991104233550.009f3e20@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Brian Baresch wrote: > Club MP game, players at this table not particularly strong > ACBL rules > EW vul > S dealer > > KQTx > Tx > Kx > AKxxx > xxxx Axx > Qxx KJ > AJTx Qxxxxx > QT Jx > Jx > Axxxxx > x > xxxx > > S W N E > 2H P 2NT P > 3H* P 4H AP > > 3H was explained as Ogust, showing a good suit and a minimum hand overall. > A spade was led to the ace, and East returned the JH, hoping to confuse > declarer and get a trump trick in addition to the two pointed aces. South's > diamond went away on the spades. But what happened? Did E-W double up on their trump tricks? Did E-W simply fail to cash the DA for the setting trick upon taking two trumps, or what? Whatever it was might affect whether the real damage might be considered subsequent or not. > After the hand it was learned that the actual N-S agreement is that 3H > merely denies a side ace or king; they don't play Ogust. South did not > correct North's explanation before the play period. E contended that, > given the proper explanation, he would have simply returned a diamond > at trick 2, hoping for maybe a trump and a club in the wash; the > result would have been down 1. Rulings, comments, thoughts? Don't quite know right now, but in any event, South should have informed the opponents after the bidding was over that the explanation was wrong. R. B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 03:32:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:32:19 +1100 (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 DAA17199 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:32:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ga187180 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 02:25:33 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-7.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.7]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Schon-MailRouter V2.5 5/1204017); 06 Nov 1999 02:25:33 Message-ID: <04f901bf2849$93504c20$136d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:25:05 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Although Ron Klinger is not on BLML, I sent him a copy of this thread because he has a special interest in Alert Procedures. His reply, reprinted here with his permission, follows: Ron Klinger writes: >The two-tier system might have something going for it, like >Green/Blue/Red/Yellow systems, with the Green/Blue tier having >No Alerts (the system to be played must be substantially natural) >and the Red/Yellow tier requiring alerts. I prefer No Alerts and doing >away with alerts entirely would be my choice, but we saw what >happened when jump bids became non-alertable here in Australia. >The 'smarties' quickly developed their methods to incorporate highly >artificial and unusual jumps to gain against the majority of non-askers >and catch the unwary. The same would happen if alerts were >abolished entirely, hence the need for at least a two-tier approach. > >The ABF (Australian) Alerts/Systems Committee, if not defunct, is >operating at best sporadically (our last significant meeting was in >August, 1998 and nothing from that meeting has progressed to action). >Do you mind if I pass this material on to the committee and try to nudge >them into some action? >Regards, >rdk Marv French had written: >I believe the answer is a truly two-tier ACBL, one for the scientists and >one for those who just want to play cards. The present efforts through >Bridge America, EasyBridge, etc., all aimed at eventually getting players >into the mainstream of higher level duplicate, will come to very little. As >soon as the participants encounter the ACBL cc and Alert Procedure, most >of them will drop out. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 03:33:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:33:05 +1100 (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 DAA17238 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:32:58 +1100 (EST) Received: by MCDA__S0 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <4BZ61KDS>; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:31:28 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Kryst, Jack" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: careless v irrational Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:31:27 -0600 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 I sit in comfort lurking and leaning from these discussions but you have prodded me into action. I must know -- what are 'bommalommas'? On Thursday, November 04, 1999 9:54 PM, John (MadDog) Probst [SMTP:john@probst.demon.co.uk] wrote: > In article <01bf2738$746e49e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones > writes > > snip > > >>holding KQJT8653 facing 94 tonight I lead the 6, 7, 9, A. Back in a > >>couple of tricks later I now played the 3 to the 4 (no bridge merit > >>involved). One doesn't often get to draw the last trump with the 3 and 4 > >>and it seemed worthy of mention at the table. As it happens it was > >>neither careless nor irrational (and I hadn't claimed). But suppose I > >>had 1) been asleep and seen the 2 as the 7, and 2) claimed? Might I > >>not have tried the 3? > >> > >>I've certainly gone down in cold contracts trying to score the D7 as > >>part of a claim "dummy's high and the D7 takes the last trick" when > >>dummy isn't high. (Cost me 2 beers btw). > >> > >>Who can judge whether a player *might* or *might not* lead the 9 from > >>J9x? I generally think they *might* and award a trick to the non- > >>claimers > > > >It strikes me that you are playin silly b******s, not bridge. > >Those that attempt to be so flamboyant deserve their come uppances. > >Those who claim in all seriousness, do not. > >Anne > > > > > I always play bridge seriously. That I can find a "game within a game" > does not detract from my desire to win. Proddy and I play snap, poker, > bommalommas and the D7 as a routine part of our game. It considerably > helps concentration and our game is probably better for it. chs john > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 03:50:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:17:48 +1100 (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 DAA16806 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:17:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id la187055 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 02:11:30 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-7.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.7]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Top-Fuel-MailRouter V2.5 5/1203185); 06 Nov 1999 02:11:30 Message-ID: <04e201bf2847$9ce1dc60$136d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Fouled Board 24 hours later Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:11:02 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > > But you want to be careful in these situations before you start >talking about the real winners. The real winners are those that are >stated to be by the Laws and Regulations of the game. Any suggestion >that a pair who has been announced as winners and retains that position >for whatever reason [such as errors found outside a Correction Period] >must not be subjected to personal attack. To do so is horrendous - and >always seems to happen. > Not always. In the New Zealand Pairs Championship four months ago, the winners noticed a *plus120* credited to them instead of their opponents, after the Correction Period had ended. They reported the error and requested that the organisers award the title to the runners-up, who had also reported a scoring mistake against themselves earlier in the event! The relevant committee eventually declared both pairs to be Joint Winners, but most people agreed that the *real winner* was bridge. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 04:11:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 04:11:56 +1100 (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 EAA17382 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 04:11:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from p0ds10a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.170.14] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11jmtY-0002rT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:11:24 -0800 Message-ID: <000201bf27b0$a5ffdf00$0eaa93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:49:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: 05 November 1999 15:31 Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. >> Herman said > >I agree with a statement of DWS. > +=+ There you go, David - wrong again! :-))) +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 04:44:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:48:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA17293 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:48:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP336.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.114]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28054 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 08:48:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991105104501.00a163a0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 10:46:36 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI In-Reply-To: References: <4.2.0.58.19991104233550.009f3e20@mail.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > 3H was explained as Ogust, showing a good suit and a minimum hand overall. > > A spade was led to the ace, and East returned the JH, hoping to confuse > > declarer and get a trump trick in addition to the two pointed aces. > South's > > diamond went away on the spades. > >But what happened? Did E-W double up on their trump tricks? Did E-W >simply fail to cash the DA for the setting trick upon taking two trumps, >or what? Whatever it was might affect whether the real damage might be >considered subsequent or not. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Declarer took the trump ace at trick 2 and immediately pitched her diamond on a high spade. 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 Sat Nov 6 05:04:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 05:04:34 +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 FAA17557 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 05:04:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:04:18 -0800 Message-ID: <025201bf27b8$297bace0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.3.32.19991105204344.007f9720@pop.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: careles v irrational Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:03:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > Patrick wrote: > > >It certainly strikes me as irrational to signal dummy though, > >whether done intentionally or out of habit. Could you say > >that they carelessly signalled dummy? > > It may strike you as irrational, but players do it. The idea is that > dummy will relax which is good for the partnership, if he knows that a > contract is making, no worries. A top Swedish pair used to do it, and > once the defence noticed the signal, interpreted it, and produced a very > dangerous defence as a result. Unfortunately, declarer knew that his > opponents [friends of his] knew his signal so he had psyched! > Followers of the UD (Unlimited Disclosure) philosophy will no doubt say that dummy should immediately explain any such signals to defenders who may not know their meaning, along with the possibility that they could be psychic. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 05:56:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:22:14 +1100 (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 DAA16948 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:22:02 +1100 (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 QAA19870 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:21:21 GMT Message-ID: <38230440.7C2184E7@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 17:22:24 +0100 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: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <01bf260e$e5a42240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3822D267.BE3D74EA@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 : > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. > > > > I agree with a statement of DWS. > > No, this is not a first. > > Can I make a suggestion. > > We should draft a list of general principles concerning > alert procedures. > Not a general alert procedure, certainly not, because > standards are far too different in different countries. > But general principles. > > I propose one : > > Asking bids, in common situations, should not be alerted > solely based on the answering scheme. Answers to them > should be alerted if they differ from the standard meaning. > > Ex : 2NT-3Cl not alertable, no matter if it is Stayman, > Baron, Puppet or anything. > Recent posts tend to imply the simplest ones would be the best, at least to avoid getting rid of alerting and (or?) ruining the game. Could I remind a prior proposition from D. Stevenson? Alert when you have a partnership understanding and you suspect it could be helpful for opponents to know. No real need to alert when your partner bids 2H over 1H opponent's opening bid, when you are certain your opponents know it is some special bid and can ask or consult your CC in order to be precisely informed. No real need to alert some 4NT bid when opponents know what it means or know there can be some doubt about what it means. Especially unfortunate to alert because it is a BW requiring some special form of answer, which could in no way have any influence in next hand's choice of call. Better to wait until before opening lead to volunteer complete explanation. Essential to alert 1NT in (1C - 1D - 1NT) when opponents could not be aware the 1NT bid could hide 4 cards in hearts or spades. i may be an utopian but i would advocate: Use your judgement when alerting; alert when in any doubt and be ready to be ruled against for MI if you happen to misjudge; try to avoid unnecessary transmission of UI. 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 Nov 6 05:58:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 04:55:58 +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 EAA17517 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 04:55:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:55:37 -0800 Message-ID: <024201bf27b6$f33178a0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Fouled Board 24 hours later Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:54:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > Jan Peter Pals wrote: > > >John Mac Gregor wrote: > >> I had an inquiry the other day concerning the late discovery of a fouled > >> board. The game was a two session pairs of two 13 table sections. After > >> announcing the winners and awarding prizes, the TD responded to a query > >> the next day and discovered that one of the boards in the second session > >> was misduplicated in one of the sections. When the game is rescored > >> according to established fouled board procedures, 1st and 2nd place are > >> reversed. Do you change the results or does this fall under the > >> "Correction Period"? Keep in mind that this is our error, not the > players. > > > >Do the players not have a responsibility to check the hand records > >after the tournament? There must have been some strange-looking > >results on this board. I suggest you announce next time that > >duplication errors and misboardings fall expressly under the > >"Correction Period". In the tournaments I direct this works all right. > >For this case, I agree with Norman's solution. > > > >Cheers, JP > > Not necessarily. Usually, these hand records only contain scores, not > contracts. It is possible that the scores on the fouled board look very > similar to the correct ones. A hand record is a record of the hands, isn't it? You seem to be talking about score sheets, not hand records. > Also, in a large tournament, strange > things sometimes happen, causing weird scores on an apparently simple > board. I do agree, however, that this falls under the correction > period, which is over. On the other hand, I think it is not fair to > the real winners not to correct this. So I too agree with Norman's > solution. > Apparently all players are not given a copy of the hands after a session. That should be routine when hands are duplicated. In these parts a misduplicated deal is usually reported many times before the correction period is over, with so many players consulting the hand records during postmortem discussions. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 06:05:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:05:48 +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 GAA17661 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:05:39 +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 OAA28550 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:05:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA25302 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:05:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:05:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911051905.OAA25302@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 Stevenson wrote: > > All right, my experience of the game is valueless, you say. I beg to > >differ. Some of us think you are misapplying it for purposes of claims. I think the origin of the problem is the false dichotomy in L70 between 'normal' on the one hand and 'irrational' on the other. > It may strike you as irrational, but players do it. ... > We must always remember that different people play different ways. > Observation and experience are helpful. > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Who can judge whether a player *might* or *might not* lead the 9 from > J9x? I generally think they *might* and award a trick to the non- > claimers David and John say that players will make odd plays if they play on, and therefore such plays are normal. They are certainly correct. On the other hand, the plays talked about (e.g., low from J9x) fit Grattan's dictionary's definition of irrational: something like "without reason," I believe he said. My dictionary says "lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence," or "not governed by or in accordance with reason." By these definitions or similar ones, low from J9x and the like are irrational. So do we consider a line of play that is _both_ normal and irrational? It is hardly surprising that people disagree or even that there is a trans-Atlantic difference of opinion. In the short run, there is probably no urgent need for worldwide harmony between the disparate interpretations. It would be nice to achieve a consistent view at least within each NCBO and possibly within each Zone, and I commend this problem to the various authorities. There should also be a consistent interpretation for WBF events. In the longer run, it might be useful to try to achieve a single, worldwide interpretation, but I don't think this has as high priority as some other matters. (I have, at least, learned to be very careful about claims if I ever play bridge in Britain or France!) My own view, FWIW, is that the footnote to L70 says that irrational lines are not to be considered, even if such lines are also normal. That explains why I consider David's experience not applicable to the question at hand. It answers the question of 'normal' but not the question of 'irrational'. This is not, incidentally, a question of North Americans being more generous to claimers. Remember the YC psychic 2H, allegedly a five card suit but holding xx? Declarer had to pick up Kx opposite AQTxx. Declarer claims without stating a line of play. Everyone will follow to the K; is declarer deemed finesse the T next? This was IMPs, and cashing guarantees the contract, but finessing makes a couple of overtricks, so the IMP odds are something like 4:1. David says that players do not, in practice, finesse. I agree; finessing is not normal. Yet a rational calculation of the odds, combined with the alleged psyching tendencies at the YC (bidding four-card suits as if holding five), suggests that finessing is rational. So we have the exact opposite of the situation above. Do we consider a line of play that is not normal but is rational? David sticks with considering 'normal' and gives declarer all the tricks. I wish to consider 'rational' and say declarer loses the finesse. Both outcomes are consistent with our respective approaches. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 06:10:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:10:09 +1100 (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 GAA17701 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:09:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-25.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.25]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18554; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:15:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003f01bf27b9$f9168960$1984d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws List" Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:17:05 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Jesper Dybdal >I find it reasonable to use the guideline that suits are taken >from the top down - this corresponds to saying that any claim >implicitly includes "taking my suits from the top down" unless >something different is explicitly said. This has the merit of allowing shorter claim statements that are nonetheless perfectly clear. We wish to encourage claims in the interest of avoiding slow play and allowing time for thought when it is really needed. This sort of obvious presumption furthers this end and mades adjudication more simple when there is question...in fact it will prevent the need to contest in many cases which also saves time. -- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 06:53:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:53:36 +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 GAA17796 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:53:27 +1100 (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 OAA21571; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:49:55 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <025201bf27b8$297bace0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19991105204344.007f9720@pop.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:44:46 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: careles v irrational Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:03 AM -0800 11/5/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> It may strike you as irrational, but players do it. The idea is that >> dummy will relax which is good for the partnership, if he knows that a >> contract is making, no worries. A top Swedish pair used to do it, and >> once the defence noticed the signal, interpreted it, and produced a very >> dangerous defence as a result. Unfortunately, declarer knew that his >> opponents [friends of his] knew his signal so he had psyched! >Followers of the UD (Unlimited Disclosure) philosophy will no doubt say >that dummy should immediately explain any such signals to defenders who >may not know their meaning, along with the possibility that they could be >psychic. And whose responsibility is this if dummy has gone to buy declarer a beer after declarer won the 13th trick with the D7 on the last hand? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 07:00:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:00:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f79.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA17830 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:00:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 37070 invoked by uid 0); 5 Nov 1999 19:59:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19991105195941.37069.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 05 Nov 1999 11:59:41 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: careles v irrational Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 19:59:41 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >David Stevenson wrote: > > > Patrick wrote: > > > > >It certainly strikes me as irrational to signal dummy though, > > >whether done intentionally or out of habit. Could you say > > >that they carelessly signalled dummy? > > > > It may strike you as irrational, but players do it. The idea is > > >that dummy will relax which is good for the partnership, if he > >knows that a contract is making, no worries. A top Swedish pair > >used to do it, and once the defence noticed the signal, interpreted > > >it, and produced a very dangerous defence as a result. > >Unfortunately, declarer knew that his opponents [friends of his] > >knew >his signal so he had psyched! > > >Followers of the UD (Unlimited Disclosure) philosophy will no doubt >say >that dummy should immediately explain any such signals to >defenders who >may not know their meaning, along with the possibility >that they could be >psychic. > Well, I would if they were conventional, but they're not. Check the definitions :-) Seriously, I believe that declarer is well within her rights to do this without disclosure. She is, after all, allowed to transmit information "by means of the calls [or] plays". Ok, L40B says it probably should be on the CC somewhere, or explained to defenders if asked ("special partnership understandings... disclose[d]...in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization"). I guess what I should have said was "SOs can't stop me from doing it, providing I 'disclose...reg[s]...SO]'", because it isn't conventional, and it doesn't come under the non-conventional understandings in L40D." Michael (who plays beer signals to dummy with $PARTNER_OF_CHOICE - if declarer plays the D7 when there is a reasonable option available, the contract has no hope. If he avoids playing the beer, "relax pd - we still have a chance") - unless he's falsecarding, of course :-). P.S. Oh, and it's an implicit agreement - we've never discussed it, I've just noticed that he does it too. mdf ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 07:09:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:07:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f105.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.105]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA17679 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:07:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 65952 invoked by uid 0); 5 Nov 1999 19:06:29 -0000 Message-ID: <19991105190629.65951.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 05 Nov 1999 11:06:28 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Should we consider it a revoke? Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 19:06:28 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >From: Martin Sinot >To: 'Konrad Ciborowski' ; 'BLML' > >> > >> Why not change the Law 25 into this one: > >> > >>- a change of bid is inadvertent if followed by the player's words > >> "Oh Sh**t" > >>- it is not inadvertent otherwise > >> > >> Diricting would become much simpler :)) > >> > > >+=+ I have been wondering if we should >add something into the definitions in the >Law Book. It is important to capitalize >on precedents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I hate to add seriousness into such a wonderful and argument-free sub-thread, but I think you are right, Grattan. I think we should add something into the definitions (not necessarily oh S***). In fact, I think that the definitions section could be doubled in size without too much problem, and with great clarification value. Of course, right now, I can't think of any (except possibly careless action, irrational action, consequent action, subsequent action, and moving the "conventional pass" definition out of L30C - thanks, Marvin, for bringing that to my attention). But IANALC Member - I just make suggestions, I don't have to implement them :-). Please? Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 07:15:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 04:54:51 +1100 (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 EAA17505 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 04:54:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-25.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.25]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA21178; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:54:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002901bf27b7$07e1cc00$1984d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Brian Baresch" Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:56:02 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is misinformation. There is damage. It is consequent. Adjust. Off 1. The innovative lead of the jack from king jack into a "known" AQ in an effort to create a trump winner by misdirection does not seem to rise to the level of wild or gambling. Given the misinformation it appears to risk an overtrick if declarer plays the queen and can find a home for his diamonds on spades, to be a push if he rises with the ace and finds a diamond pitch, and wins just made instead of plus one if the deception works and there is no pitch available. It is a risky strategy to be sure but not irrational on the information given. Assuming dummy split the honours to force the spade ace at trick one, there is the additional consideration that declarer may lack the spade jack. If so the diamond pitch only exists if he also hooks the ten on the second round of spades, which is less than the 100% play on the real holding. What is certain is that had the correct 3 club bid been made if they had been playing Ogust, being told that declarer DOES NOT hold 2 of the top three honours in trump, defender will NOT lead the heart jack. Partner has to hold no worse than honour third. With two trump tricks a certainty, he will search for the fourth defensive trick. Leading a black suit doesn't look profitable. The diamond shift is marked. (But this really doesn't apply to the ruling.) -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Brian Baresch To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 12:47 AM Subject: Disagreement about MI >This may strike many of you as a "WTP?" question, but another director and >I disagree over it, and maybe you can help us learn a thing or two. > >Club MP game, players at this table not particularly strong >ACBL rules >EW vul >S dealer > > KQTx > Tx > Kx > AKxxx >xxxx Axx >Qxx KJ >AJTx Qxxxxx >QT Jx > Jx > Axxxxx > x > xxxx > >S W N E >2H P 2NT P >3H* P 4H AP > >3H was explained as Ogust, showing a good suit and a minimum hand overall. >A spade was led to the ace, and East returned the JH, hoping to confuse >declarer and get a trump trick in addition to the two pointed aces. South's >diamond went away on the spades. > >After the hand it was learned that the actual N-S agreement is that 3H >merely denies a side ace or king; they don't play Ogust. South did not >correct North's explanation before the play period. > >E contended that, given the proper explanation, he would have simply >returned a diamond at trick 2, hoping for maybe a trump and a club in the >wash; the result would have been down 1. > >Rulings, comments, thoughts? > >Thanks in advance, > >Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net >Lawrence, Kansas, USA >Editing, writing, proofreading >If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 08:07:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:37:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f84.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA17758 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:37:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 87998 invoked by uid 0); 5 Nov 1999 19:36:56 -0000 Message-ID: <19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 05 Nov 1999 11:36:56 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 19:36:56 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. > > > >I agree with a statement of DWS. > >No, this is not a first. > >Can I make a suggestion. > >We should draft a list of general principles concerning >alert procedures. >Not a general alert procedure, certainly not, because >standards are far too different in different countries. >But general principles. > This would be an interesting exercise. Yesterday I posted my principles (if it can't be explained without recourse to actual writing (as opposed to the "15 words" and "to", "through", +- et al), then it's alertable. Otherwise it's on the CC.) Unfortunately, nothing's perfect... >I propose one : > >Asking bids, in common situations, should not be alerted >solely based on the answering scheme. Answers to them >should be alerted if they differ from the standard meaning. > I agree with the first sentence. But I draw the exact opposite conclusion from it... I don't think that Asking bids should be alerted based on the answering scheme. But they should be alerted. I have trouble with the second sentence, because it contains the word "standard", which means we have to define "standard". The only problem I have with the EBU alert regs (having never played under them, so I could be missing huge gaps) is that the consequence is many "obvious" alerts. I.e. 1NT - 2D! (transfer); 2H! (may only have 2, partner asked me to do this). However, if the asking bid were alerted, then I can see "no alerts unless the response is unusual *for the system played*. I.e. after 2NT-3C!, 3D would not be alerted if it were denying a 4-card major (if 3C were standard Stayman), showing a 4-card major (if 3C were puppet Stayman), sinply showing a 4-card diamond suit (if 3C were Baron), and so on. But, for example, EHAA 2H in the auction 1NT(10-12)-2C! (Stayman, guaranteed Inv+, "only" non-contract-setting bid); 2H! (shows 4 hearts, but *denies 4 spades*) should be alerted. I also would like the auction 1NT-2C! (Stayman); 2x-2NT! (only way to natural invite in NT, does not guarantee 4cM) to be alertable. One of the tricks that the ACBL got right, IMO. >Ex : 2NT-3Cl not alertable, no matter if it is Stayman, >Baron, Puppet or anything. > That's why I don't like this, because what if it's natural? Ok, maybe not 2NT-3C, but what about 1NT-2C? Or (as in EHAA) 1NT-4C? A "principle" in return - non-conventional bids should not require alerts. Michael. P.S. Interesting fact - the day I post about cleaning up the ACBL CC to make my Alert procedure possible, I get my November _Bulletin_, where the editorial page talks about the "Fat-free" ACBL CC (sorry, can't find it on the ACBL web site yet). mdf ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 09:03:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:03:27 +1100 (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 JAA18107 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:03:17 +1100 (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 RAA04702 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:03:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991105170505.006a4898@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 17:05:05 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: <3822D267.BE3D74EA@village.uunet.be> References: <01bf260e$e5a42240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:49 PM 11/5/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >We should draft a list of general principles concerning >alert procedures. >Not a general alert procedure, certainly not, because >standards are far too different in different countries. >But general principles. > >I propose one : > >Asking bids, in common situations, should not be alerted >solely based on the answering scheme. Answers to them >should be alerted if they differ from the standard meaning. > >Ex : 2NT-3Cl not alertable, no matter if it is Stayman, >Baron, Puppet or anything. Here's my contribution; I think Marv at least will approve... Any method that can be indicated by checking a box (or circling an option) on the convention card should not be alertable. ACBL examples are too numerous to enumerate completely. They include simple transfers over NT openings, forcing 1NT responses to a major opening, 2NT, 3NT and "splinter" double jumps as forcing raises of a major opening, inverted minor raises, limit 2NT responses to 1-level opening bids, "fourth suit forcing", non-forcing new suit responses to weak 2-bids, responsive and support doubles, preemptive jump raises and jump shifts in competition, strong and intermediate jump overcalls, and much more. 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 Nov 6 09:45:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:45:37 +1100 (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 JAA18251 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:45:29 +1100 (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 RAA22608 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:43:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id RAA26276; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:43:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:43:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199911052243.RAA26276@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Brian Baresch wrote: >>This may strike many of you as a "WTP?" question, but another director and >>I disagree over it, and maybe you can help us learn a thing or two. >> >>Club MP game, players at this table not particularly strong >>ACBL rules >>EW vul >>S dealer >> >> KQTx >> Tx >> Kx[B >> AKxxx >>xxxx Axx >>Qxx KJ >>AJTx Qxxxxx >>QT Jx >> Jx >> Axxxxx >> x >> xxxx >> >>S W N E >>2H P 2NT P >>3H* P 4H AP >> >>3H was explained as Ogust, showing a good suit and a minimum hand overall. >>A spade was led to the ace, and East returned the JH, hoping to confuse >>declarer and get a trump trick in addition to the two pointed aces. South's >>diamond went away on the spades. >> >>After the hand it was learned that the actual N-S agreement is that 3H >>merely denies a side ace or king; they don't play Ogust. South did not >>correct North's explanation before the play period. >> >>E contended that, given the proper explanation, he would have simply >>returned a diamond at trick 2, hoping for maybe a trump and a club in the >>wash; the result would have been down 1. >> >>Rulings, comments, thoughts? > > Adjust, wtp, says Quango. > > Also make clear to S his requirement to correct before the opening >lead. > I can imagine the BLs making a meal of whether East deserves an >adjustment, because of his "misdefence". He did not do anything stupid, >and with a correct explanation he might have got it right - and that's >good enough. > >-- I hesitate to take on Quango, but... I think the result should stand. We are told that 3H was explained as Ogust, a good suit but a minimum hand overall. This means that South *will not have* the DA. I say this because if South has SJx HAQxxxx DA Cxxxx, he would bid 3S. Later we learn that 3H was meant as no side ace or king, and no clear definition of the heart suit, that is, a hand like SJx H??xxxx Dx Cxxxx. There are three reasons why I think the result should stand. The first is that the information content of the two responces is almost identical; that is, a heart suit, and no DA. The second is that, with the spade suit set up (and East knows it was set up: South is not a strong player, and there is nothing in the write-up to suggest he did anything but let the spade lead ride toward his SJ) East has to play matchpoint bridge and take his tricks. Yes, there was misinformation (albeit, in my opinion, minor) but the result was caused by East's error. Also, I do not think that a player has to be designated a BL to suggest this. Now for the third reason (and I hope Quango won't be too hissed with me!). I don't think this case even comes close to L12C2's requirement of most favourable result likely. I look at this, and I think the most likely result is what actually happened (shades of Treadwell's "Let's play bridge!"), considering East's level of ability. I might be persuaded that the offending side could receive the most unfavourable result ect. (but, maybe not). All in all, Quango, I disagree with your comment " wtp". Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 10:36:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:36:26 +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 KAA18377 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:36:18 +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 SAA08728 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:36:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA25503 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:36:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:36:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911052336.SAA25503@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Any method that can be indicated by checking a box (or circling an option) > on the convention card should not be alertable. First, you better decide what you want to accomplish. Eric and I, and I think Marv, prefer an approach in which an alert would mean "This is something _really_ strange; you want to ask." On the other hand, the EBU takes the view that you alert anything that is not natural and also anything that's natural but in some way strange. The ACBL has yet a different approach, where the intent is to alert anything that doesn't conform to their notion of standard. I wouldn't be surprised if other jurisdictions derive their alert rules from yet different theories of alerting. Obviously all three of the above theories are viable, and reasonable people can differ on which one they like best. Another whole question is what, if anything, should be announceable. I think our "alert only the really strange" approach could be implemented by a small number of rules. Whether they are simple or not is another question, but they might look something like: Alert a suit bid if...[short rule] Alert a notrump bid if...[different short rule] (etc. for double, redouble, and pass.) And then give exceptions: but do not alert if a) you can show the meaning via a checkbox or circle, b) it is after opener's rebid and above 4NT, c) it is announceable instead, d) etc. As an example, the "short rule" for suit bids might be "it doesn't show length or high card strength in the suit named, or it does show length or high card strength in some different suit." This rule would make, for example, transfers or splinters alertable, but the 'CC box' rule would make them not alertable after all (for most convention cards), at least as direct responses. They might remain alertable as, say, rebids or by advancer. That seems fine to me. It occurs to me that specific rules along the lines suggested above might even work in multiple jurisdictions. Of course the _effect_ would be different because differing CC's would have different check boxes, but that's OK. You could even have various CC's within a single NCBO or SO: a complex one with lots of check boxes for the advanced game, and a simple one with few check boxes for the lower- level game. Then if anyone in the lower-level game wants to play something not showable with the check boxes (and it's still legal), they have to alert it. Yet the alert rules themselves don't change. Well, this whole approach will not be to everyone's taste, but I don't think it's crazy. I'm sure it would cut down on the number of alerts! But of course it only works if people take the convention cards seriously. What was it Mike (?) said about checking weather reports from the underworld? Better be prepared if the ACBL buys this! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 10:38:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:38:32 +1100 (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 KAA18393 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:38:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh69.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.201]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA22804 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:38:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991105183517.01317358@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 18:35:17 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991104233550.009f3e20@mail.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:45 PM 11/4/99 -0600,Brian wrote: >This may strike many of you as a "WTP?" question, but another director and >I disagree over it, and maybe you can help us learn a thing or two. > >Club MP game, players at this table not particularly strong >ACBL rules >EW vul >S dealer > > KQTx > Tx > Kx > AKxxx >xxxx Axx >Qxx KJ >AJTx Qxxxxx >QT Jx > Jx > Axxxxx > x > xxxx > >S W N E >2H P 2NT P >3H* P 4H AP > >3H was explained as Ogust, showing a good suit and a minimum hand overall. >A spade was led to the ace, and East returned the JH, hoping to confuse >declarer and get a trump trick in addition to the two pointed aces. South's >diamond went away on the spades. > >After the hand it was learned that the actual N-S agreement is that 3H >merely denies a side ace or king; they don't play Ogust. South did not >correct North's explanation before the play period. Was there an infraction? Yes, two in fact, though they had the same effect, which was to convey MI about the NS agreements. Was there damage? Yes, EW could clearly have done better. Was the damage the result of the infraction? This one's harder. I am not entirely convinced by East's story; it is certainly easier to see the winning action double-dummy, and maybe he should have found this action anyway (the trump jack is not a great play regardless of East's understanding of South's bid). But it certainly could have been as he argues, and given that he can come up with at least a fairly plausible bridge argument, I think he's entitled to the benefit of the doubt. NS -50. You have described the players as relatively weak, and I don't know whether that also means inexperienced. At the least, South needs a firm lecture on his legal obligation to correct the mis-explanation. If he is a player who should reasonably be expected to understand his obligations in this respect, then a smallish PP seems in order as well. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 10:46:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:46:30 +1100 (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 KAA18424 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:46:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh69.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.201]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA18036 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:46:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991105184316.013168c0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 18:43:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI In-Reply-To: <002901bf27b7$07e1cc00$1984d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:56 PM 11/5/99 -0500, Craig wrote: >What is certain is that had the correct 3 club bid been made if they had >been playing Ogust, being told that declarer DOES NOT hold 2 of the top >three honours in trump, defender will NOT lead the heart jack. Partner has >to hold no worse than honour third. With two trump tricks a certainty, he >will search for the fourth defensive trick. Leading a black suit doesn't >look profitable. The diamond shift is marked. (But this really doesn't apply >to the ruling.) Although we agree on the final ruling, I don't understand this paragraph. They _weren't_ playing Ogust, so the notion that South's "correct" bid was or might have been 3C is completely irrelevant. If indeed they had been playing Ogust (or at any rate North's version of it), then there would have been no infraction at all, just a misbid by South, which, contrary to Herman's opinion, is not illegal or subject to any sanction at all. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 10:48:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:48:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18441 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:48:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn45p49.ozemail.com.au [210.84.1.241]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA19456 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:48:03 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991106104829.00993500@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 10:48:29 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: careles v irrational In-Reply-To: References: <025201bf27b8$297bace0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.3.32.19991105204344.007f9720@pop.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:44 PM 5/11/99 -0500, you wrote: >At 10:03 AM -0800 11/5/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: > >>> It may strike you as irrational, but players do it. The idea is that >>> dummy will relax which is good for the partnership, if he knows that a >>> contract is making, no worries. A top Swedish pair used to do it, and >>> once the defence noticed the signal, interpreted it, and produced a very >>> dangerous defence as a result. Unfortunately, declarer knew that his >>> opponents [friends of his] knew his signal so he had psyched! > >>Followers of the UD (Unlimited Disclosure) philosophy will no doubt say >>that dummy should immediately explain any such signals to defenders who >>may not know their meaning, along with the possibility that they could be >>psychic. > >And whose responsibility is this if dummy has gone to buy declarer a beer >after declarer won the 13th trick with the D7 on the last hand? > If declarer signals dummy, and dummy is not there to receive it, is that a signal? Cheers, Tony > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 11:44:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:51:28 +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 KAA18478 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:51:19 +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 SAA08943 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:51:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA25549 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:51:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:51:20 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911052351.SAA25549@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Was there an infraction? Yes, two in fact, though they had the same effect, > which was to convey MI about the NS agreements. Yes. > maybe he > should have found this action anyway (the trump jack is not a great play > regardless of East's understanding of South's bid). Not that I disagree with Mike, but this is a convenient place to interject an important point, often overlooked. The question, "Given the MI, should the player have found the right call/play anyway?" is entirely the wrong one to ask! The proper question is, "If the player had been given the correct information, what action would he have chosen?" His play with the MI may be evidence on that point, for example if the MI didn't suggest the wrong play, but we should be sure we are asking the proper question in MI cases. On this hand, we can rephrase Mike's point as follows: given that the player didn't find the (winning) diamond lead, how likely is it that the correct information would have changed his thoughts enough to allow him to find it? (I agree with Mike and David: there is a fair chance, so give him the adjustment.) It is all to easy to reason "He made a bad play and deserves his result," but that's not what the Laws say. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 11:56:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:56:19 +1100 (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 LAA20117 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:56:07 +1100 (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 11ju92-0002wL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:55:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:39:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI References: <199911052243.RAA26276@freenet5.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199911052243.RAA26276@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: >> >>Brian Baresch wrote: >>>This may strike many of you as a "WTP?" question, but another director and >>>I disagree over it, and maybe you can help us learn a thing or two. >>> >>>Club MP game, players at this table not particularly strong >>>ACBL rules >>>EW vul >>>S dealer >>> >>> KQTx >>> Tx >>> Kx[B >>> AKxxx >>>xxxx Axx >>>Qxx KJ >>>AJTx Qxxxxx >>>QT Jx >>> Jx >>> Axxxxx >>> x >>> xxxx >>> >>>S W N E >>>2H P 2NT P >>>3H* P 4H AP >>> >>>3H was explained as Ogust, showing a good suit and a minimum hand overall. >>>A spade was led to the ace, and East returned the JH, hoping to confuse >>>declarer and get a trump trick in addition to the two pointed aces. South's >>>diamond went away on the spades. >>> >>>After the hand it was learned that the actual N-S agreement is that 3H >>>merely denies a side ace or king; they don't play Ogust. South did not >>>correct North's explanation before the play period. >>> >>>E contended that, given the proper explanation, he would have simply >>>returned a diamond at trick 2, hoping for maybe a trump and a club in the >>>wash; the result would have been down 1. >>> >>>Rulings, comments, thoughts? >> >> Adjust, wtp, says Quango. >> >> Also make clear to S his requirement to correct before the opening >>lead. > >> I can imagine the BLs making a meal of whether East deserves an >>adjustment, because of his "misdefence". He did not do anything stupid, >>and with a correct explanation he might have got it right - and that's >>good enough. >> >>-- >I hesitate to take on Quango, but... >I think the result should stand. >We are told that 3H was explained as Ogust, a good suit but a minimum >hand overall. This means that South *will not have* the DA. I say >this because if South has SJx HAQxxxx DA Cxxxx, he would bid 3S. >Later we learn that 3H was meant as no side ace or king, and no clear >definition of the heart suit, that is, a hand like SJx H??xxxx Dx Cxxxx. >There are three reasons why I think the result should stand. >The first is that the information content of the two responces is almost >identical; that is, a heart suit, and no DA. >The second is that, with the spade suit set up (and East knows it was >set up: South is not a strong player, and there is nothing in the >write-up to suggest he did anything but let the spade lead ride toward >his SJ) East has to play matchpoint bridge and take his tricks. Yes, >there was misinformation (albeit, in my opinion, minor) but the result >was caused by East's error. Also, I do not think that a player has to be >designated a BL to suggest this. >Now for the third reason (and I hope Quango won't be too hissed with me!). >I don't think this case even comes close to L12C2's requirement of >most favourable result likely. I look at this, and I think the most >likely result is what actually happened (shades of Treadwell's >"Let's play bridge!"), considering East's level of ability. I might >be persuaded that the offending side could receive the most unfavourable >result ect. (but, maybe not). >All in all, Quango, I disagree with your comment " wtp". *snarl - meeeowwww* What you are saying, Tony, is that with careful analysis, East can see his defence is wrong. No doubt. Would he be more likely to get it right if told South has no outside ace or king? Yes. I do not like this method of ruling against players because detailed analysis proves their play was wrong. are you suggesting that a failure to analyse this carefully is "irrational, wild or gambling" action? Why are some parts so anti the non-offenders? You are talking about club players who are not strong. -- 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 Nov 6 11:56:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:56:09 +1100 (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 LAA20108 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:55:58 +1100 (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 11ju8s-0002wM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:55:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:15:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <000201bf27b0$a5ffdf00$0eaa93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000201bf27b0$a5ffdf00$0eaa93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. >Herman said >>I agree with a statement of DWS. >+=+ There you go, David - wrong again! :-))) +=+ That is very naughty, Grattan! Very funny, yes, true, but naughty! Quango would like you all to remember that Herman is often right. He quotes a case in 1996 .... -- 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 Nov 6 11:56:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:56:10 +1100 (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 LAA20107 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:55:58 +1100 (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 11ju8s-0002wL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:55:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:12:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <199911051905.OAA25302@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199911051905.OAA25302@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 Stevenson wrote: >> > All right, my experience of the game is valueless, you say. I beg to >> >differ. > >Some of us think you are misapplying it for purposes of claims. I >think the origin of the problem is the false dichotomy in L70 between >'normal' on the one hand and 'irrational' on the other. > >> It may strike you as irrational, but players do it. >... >> We must always remember that different people play different ways. >> Observation and experience are helpful. > >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> Who can judge whether a player *might* or *might not* lead the 9 from >> J9x? I generally think they *might* and award a trick to the non- >> claimers > >David and John say that players will make odd plays if they play on, >and therefore such plays are normal. They are certainly correct. > >On the other hand, the plays talked about (e.g., low from J9x) fit >Grattan's dictionary's definition of irrational: something like >"without reason," I believe he said. My dictionary says "lacking usual >or normal mental clarity or coherence," or "not governed by or in >accordance with reason." By these definitions or similar ones, low >from J9x and the like are irrational. By the definition you give low from J9x is *NOT* irrational. Why on earth should it be irrational? What you and your supporters are saying is that is not the way you play, and anything you do not do is not rational. It won't wash. Let us start again. You have three cards in a suit. You know with complete and absolute certainty that no-one else has any, so there is no need to play them in any specific order to increase the number of tricks. You choose a card to play. Why do you choose a specific card? Do you have a reason? Let us say that you choose the middle card. Your reason? Because you have a rule in such situations to always play the middle card because sometimes [rarely, perhaps] LHO will discard or trump without realising that it is good. That is a good, logical reason. It is not a play that is "lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence" since there is a perfectly good reason for playing it. It is not "not governed by or in accordance with reason" since it definitely is in accord with reason. I can imagine one or two people out there saying "But it is such a rare reason": so what? It may not be your choice, but how can you suggest it is not reasonable and rational? Now let us consider your play. You want to play the top card: why? Because it will win if you have forgotten a card which is [a] still out and [b] of a rank between the top and second cards. How common is that? Back to Red Sox winning the World Series territory! More to the point, with a careful declarer, it will gain fewer tricks than always playing the second highest from such holdings. Some people never miscount suits, you know! If declarer is a player who *never* miscounts suits then to play the highest specifically for the case of forgetting a card which is [a] still out and [b] of a rank between the top and second cards is "lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence" since there is no reason for playing it, and is "not governed by or in accordance with reason" since it there is no reason to play that way. When a player holds J9x and 'knows' there are none out he can have a number of reasons for playing them in any specific order. You for reasons that escape me put one reason before all others, and claim that other reasons are irrational. This is not so, because such other plays have rationality, and we should take note of this for ruling on claims. >So do we consider a line of play that is _both_ normal and irrational? >It is hardly surprising that people disagree or even that there is a >trans-Atlantic difference of opinion. > >In the short run, there is probably no urgent need for worldwide >harmony between the disparate interpretations. It would be nice to >achieve a consistent view at least within each NCBO and possibly within >each Zone, and I commend this problem to the various authorities. >There should also be a consistent interpretation for WBF events. In >the longer run, it might be useful to try to achieve a single, >worldwide interpretation, but I don't think this has as high priority >as some other matters. I am surprised at you, Steve, for giving up so easily. One thing I have liked about BLML, which was better in the early days, is the method of trying to solve problems, rather than just give up on them, or ask some authority to pronounce. I think we would do better to try to approach a consensus here rather than write it off as differences in opinion between us, or between our continents. Few of us represent our continents if the truth be told, even those of us who think they do. >(I have, at least, learned to be very careful about claims if I ever >play bridge in Britain or France!) > >My own view, FWIW, is that the footnote to L70 says that irrational >lines are not to be considered, even if such lines are also normal. >That explains why I consider David's experience not applicable to the >question at hand. It answers the question of 'normal' but not the >question of 'irrational'. > >This is not, incidentally, a question of North Americans being more >generous to claimers. Remember the YC psychic 2H, allegedly a five >card suit but holding xx? Declarer had to pick up Kx opposite AQTxx. >Declarer claims without stating a line of play. Everyone will follow >to the K; is declarer deemed finesse the T next? This was IMPs, and >cashing guarantees the contract, but finessing makes a couple of >overtricks, so the IMP odds are something like 4:1. David says that >players do not, in practice, finesse. I agree; finessing is not >normal. Yet a rational calculation of the odds, combined with the >alleged psyching tendencies at the YC (bidding four-card suits as if >holding five), suggests that finessing is rational. So we have the >exact opposite of the situation above. Do we consider a line of play >that is not normal but is rational? David sticks with considering >'normal' and gives declarer all the tricks. I wish to consider >'rational' and say declarer loses the finesse. Both outcomes are >consistent with our respective approaches. I dislike this comment nearly as much as the earlier part of the article. Either you accept my argument, or you don't: but it is not a geographical thing. Please do not put it down to that. -- 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 Nov 6 14:20:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:20:06 +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 OAA20410 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:19:52 +1100 (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 11jwOD-000Gwl-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:19:42 +0000 Message-ID: <$zU2umAO35I4EwsR@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:17:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991104233550.009f3e20@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <4.2.0.58.19991104233550.009f3e20@mail.earthlink.net>, Brian Baresch writes >This may strike many of you as a "WTP?" question, but another director and >I disagree over it, and maybe you can help us learn a thing or two. > >Club MP game, players at this table not particularly strong >ACBL rules >EW vul >S dealer > > KQTx > Tx > Kx > AKxxx >xxxx Axx >Qxx KJ >AJTx Qxxxxx >QT Jx > Jx > Axxxxx > x > xxxx > >S W N E >2H P 2NT P >3H* P 4H AP > >3H was explained as Ogust, showing a good suit and a minimum hand overall. >A spade was led to the ace, and East returned the JH, hoping to confuse >declarer and get a trump trick in addition to the two pointed aces. South's >diamond went away on the spades. was there a mistaken explanation? yes Could declarer have known that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non offenders? yes I adjust. If he'd corrected it I wouldn't. Figaro thinks Quango would just say wtp. I'd also point out to declarer his duties to correct and that on the defence found he'd probably have made it if he had corrected it. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 14:20:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:20:04 +1100 (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 OAA20409 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:19:52 +1100 (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 11jwOB-0006uM-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:19:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:08:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: careles v irrational In-Reply-To: <025201bf27b8$297bace0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <025201bf27b8$297bace0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes snip >> >> It may strike you as irrational, but players do it. The idea is that >> dummy will relax which is good for the partnership, if he knows that a >> contract is making, no worries. A top Swedish pair used to do it, and >> once the defence noticed the signal, interpreted it, and produced a very >> dangerous defence as a result. Unfortunately, declarer knew that his >> opponents [friends of his] knew his signal so he had psyched! >> >Followers of the UD (Unlimited Disclosure) philosophy will no doubt say >that dummy should immediately explain any such signals to defenders who >may not know their meaning, along with the possibility that they could be >psychic. but only after the hand is over :)))) Laws 42 and 43 generally 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 Nov 6 14:20:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:20:04 +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 OAA20408 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:19:52 +1100 (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 11jwOA-000Gwm-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:19:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 02:47:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991105170505.006a4898@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19991105170505.006a4898@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 01:49 PM 11/5/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > >>We should draft a list of general principles concerning >>alert procedures. >>Not a general alert procedure, certainly not, because >>standards are far too different in different countries. >>But general principles. >> >>I propose one : >> >>Asking bids, in common situations, should not be alerted >>solely based on the answering scheme. Answers to them >>should be alerted if they differ from the standard meaning. >> >>Ex : 2NT-3Cl not alertable, no matter if it is Stayman, >>Baron, Puppet or anything. > >Here's my contribution; I think Marv at least will approve... > >Any method that can be indicated by checking a box (or circling an option) >on the convention card should not be alertable. Equally any method that can be circled or ticked can sensibly be announced. I have a lot of time for announcing - it seems to work well and the UI content is pretty low. I went round in circles tonight (UK alert regs) 1S x 2D ? (btw it's clear P P 1S x 2D [NF] is not alertable in UK) alertable? alertable if forcing? alertable if non-forcing? what about 1C x 1S ? any difference offers? let us know which jurisdiction as it may well be different in ACBL, or Oz or wherever I'm not sure I know the answer btw - the FOB is not entirely clear here to my mind. 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 Nov 6 15:27:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA20630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:27:18 +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 PAA20624 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:27:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegrl.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.117]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01549 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:27:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991105232400.0131ba44@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 23:24:00 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI In-Reply-To: <199911052243.RAA26276@freenet5.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:43 PM 11/5/99 -0500, Tony wrote: >I hesitate to take on Quango, but... >I think the result should stand. >We are told that 3H was explained as Ogust, a good suit but a minimum >hand overall. This means that South *will not have* the DA. I say >this because if South has SJx HAQxxxx DA Cxxxx, he would bid 3S. >Later we learn that 3H was meant as no side ace or king, and no clear >definition of the heart suit, that is, a hand like SJx H??xxxx Dx Cxxxx. >There are three reasons why I think the result should stand. >The first is that the information content of the two responces is almost >identical; that is, a heart suit, and no DA. >The second is that, with the spade suit set up (and East knows it was >set up: South is not a strong player, and there is nothing in the >write-up to suggest he did anything but let the spade lead ride toward >his SJ) East has to play matchpoint bridge and take his tricks. Yes, >there was misinformation (albeit, in my opinion, minor) but the result >was caused by East's error. Also, I do not think that a player has to be >designated a BL to suggest this. >Now for the third reason (and I hope Quango won't be too hissed with me!). >I don't think this case even comes close to L12C2's requirement of >most favourable result likely. I look at this, and I think the most >likely result is what actually happened (shades of Treadwell's >"Let's play bridge!"), considering East's level of ability. I might >be persuaded that the offending side could receive the most unfavourable >result ect. (but, maybe not). >All in all, Quango, I disagree with your comment " wtp". > Tony (aka ac342) Although I have come down on the other side, I think Tony's arguments deserve greater consideration than they have received. Suppose South had held the hand described, i.e., with the AQ of trumps but otherwise the same. The hand plays out the same way, except that South finesses at trick 2, draws trumps, and claims. Top board since EW failed to cash their diamond winner. Are EW still entitled to redress? On the one hand, it is hard to see the necessary causal connection between the infraction and the damage if the picture painted by North's explanation corresponds so well to the actual hand held by South, so maybe we should say, in that case, that the damage was caused by the rub of the green and perhaps East's ill-chosen lead. And yet the nature of the infraction was to mis-describe an agreement, however well or poorly that explanation corresponds to South's hand. If East decides to make the unfortunate lead of the trump J _because of the explanation_, then he is equally damaged by the MI whether South has the Q or not. I lean toward this latter view myself, but I think it leads to a ruling in the hypothetical case (South with AQ of trumps) that many would find unpalatable. Maybe this is the answer to the rhetorical WTP. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 16:36:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:36:20 +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 QAA20742 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:36:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 21:35:56 -0800 Message-ID: <029201bf2818$c5adefa0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <01bf260e$e5a42240$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19991105170505.006a4898@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 21:35:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > Herman wrote: > > >We should draft a list of general principles concerning > >alert procedures. > >Not a general alert procedure, certainly not, because > >standards are far too different in different countries. > >But general principles. > > > >I propose one : > > > >Asking bids, in common situations, should not be alerted > >solely based on the answering scheme. Answers to them > >should be alerted if they differ from the standard meaning. > > > >Ex : 2NT-3Cl not alertable, no matter if it is Stayman, > >Baron, Puppet or anything. > > Here's my contribution; I think Marv at least will approve... > > Any method that can be indicated by checking a box (or circling an option) > on the convention card should not be alertable. I approve 100% in principle, but the ACBL cc needs to have bigger lettering. Since most players do not use all of the garbage shown on the cc, a simpler cc could easily be designed. One, for instance, that requires recording of understandings instead of checking labeled boxes. Looking at the opponents' cc, you would see nothing but their agreements--in large type.. This approach does require, however, that ACBL cc regulations be observed: Two cards in plain view on the table, legible, completely filled out. Since ACBL TDs are unable or unwilling to enforce this requirement currently, your suggestion may not be practical. > ACBL examples are too numerous to enumerate completely. They include > simple transfers over NT openings, forcing 1NT responses to a major > opening, 2NT, 3NT and "splinter" double jumps as forcing raises of a major > opening, inverted minor raises, limit 2NT responses to 1-level opening > bids, "fourth suit forcing", non-forcing new suit responses to weak 2-bids, > responsive and support doubles, preemptive jump raises and jump shifts in > competition, strong and intermediate jump overcalls, and much more. > Yes, none of these should be Alertable. Let players look at the opposing cc for the meanings of calls. Moreover, no questions allowed if the answers are on the cc, except by those with eye problems. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 17:13:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA20832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:13:21 +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 RAA20827 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:13:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:13:04 -0800 Message-ID: <02a001bf281d$f51dd980$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911052336.SAA25503@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:12:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 > First, you better decide what you want to accomplish. Eric and I, and > I think Marv, prefer an approach in which an alert would mean "This is > something _really_ strange; you want to ask." Sounds reasonable, yes, except it should be "You want to look at our convention card." Players who cannot cope with this approach would just have to play in a side game with disclosure rules that they can handle. > The ACBL has yet a > different approach, where the intent is to alert anything that doesn't > conform to their notion of standard. If that is indeed the intent, it has not been fulfilled. Here are some non-standard understandings that are not Alertable: -- Natural strong two bids -- 1S response to a 1H opening that promises at least five spades. -- Natural 2D, 2H, or 2S signoff response to a 1NT opening -- Stayman 2C that does not promise a major -- Cue bid over an opening 1-of-a-suit showing the top and bottom unbid suits I am not saying they should be Alerted, but whatever Alert philosophy is adopted should be consistently applied, with exceptions appropriate only when they support the goal of simplicity. Marv (Marvin L. French). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 17:55:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA20880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:55:15 +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 RAA20875 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:55:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:54:50 -0800 Message-ID: <02d101bf2823$ca6ef920$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: careles v irrational Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:53:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: John (MadDog) Probst Marvin L. French writes" > >Followers of the UD (Unlimited Disclosure) philosophy will no doubt say > >that dummy should immediately explain any such signals to defenders who > >may not know their meaning, along with the possibility that they could be > >psychic. > > but only after the hand is over :)))) Laws 42 and 43 generally > Interesting. L42 does not give him this right, but L43A1(c) says he cannot communicate anything about the play *to declarer*, implying that it is okay to communicate something about the play to the defenders. Question: Can dummy correct MI after the opening lead is made, or during the play, having realized the MI only at that time, or does s/he have to wait until the play is over? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 22:03:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:03:53 +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 WAA21154 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:03:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-144.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.144]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12832 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:03:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38240037.1D008D0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 11:17:27 +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: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Michael, Michael Farebrother wrote: > > >From: Herman De Wael > > > > >Asking bids, in common situations, should not be alerted > >solely based on the answering scheme. Answers to them > >should be alerted if they differ from the standard meaning. > > > I agree with the first sentence. But I draw the exact opposite conclusion > from it... > > I don't think that Asking bids should be alerted based on the answering > scheme. But they should be alerted. > That depends on the regulating committee. My point is that they should be alerted or not, depending on what you think is most standard in your country, but that the alerting or not should not depend on the answering scheme. > I have trouble with the second sentence, because it contains the word > "standard", which means we have to define "standard". > But that is what an alert regulation is all about. > The only problem I have with the EBU alert regs (having never played under > them, so I could be missing huge gaps) is that the consequence is many > "obvious" alerts. I.e. 1NT - 2D! (transfer); 2H! (may only have 2, partner > asked me to do this). > Indeed, in England you alert Stayman ! > However, if the asking bid were alerted, then I can see "no alerts unless > the response is unusual *for the system played*. I.e. after 2NT-3C!, 3D > would not be alerted if it were denying a 4-card major (if 3C were standard > Stayman), showing a 4-card major (if 3C were puppet Stayman), sinply showing > a 4-card diamond suit (if 3C were Baron), and so on. No, in my opinion the alert procedure could simply define a "standard" answering scheme, and only those answers that are different should be alerted. > But, for example, EHAA > 2H in the auction 1NT(10-12)-2C! (Stayman, guaranteed Inv+, "only" > non-contract-setting bid); 2H! (shows 4 hearts, but *denies 4 spades*) > should be alerted. > > I also would like the auction 1NT-2C! (Stayman); 2x-2NT! (only way to > natural invite in NT, does not guarantee 4cM) to be alertable. One of the > tricks that the ACBL got right, IMO. > > >Ex : 2NT-3Cl not alertable, no matter if it is Stayman, > >Baron, Puppet or anything. > > > That's why I don't like this, because what if it's natural? Ok, maybe not > 2NT-3C, but what about 1NT-2C? Or (as in EHAA) 1NT-4C? > Well, if the regulation stipulates that 3Cl (asking) is non-alertable, then surely 3Cl natural must be alerted. Many people find it strange that one should alert some natural bids, but isn't that the consequence of the fact that some bids have lost their "natural" meaning altogether. For instance, in Belgium, we still alert direct cue-bids (one of the things I would like to throw out). 1He-(2He) is always alerted, because absolutely no-one plays that natural. If we were to change the regulation, it would mean that my partner and I would have to start alerting 1Cl-(2Cl) : clubs ! (2Di shows majors, 3Cl Di+Sp) > A "principle" in return - non-conventional bids should not require alerts. > Totally unworkable - if we are dropping alerts from some conventions, the consequence is that natural bids get alerts. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 22:03:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:03:43 +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 WAA21144 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:03:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-144.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.144]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12808 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:03:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3823FCDA.ED814DBD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 11:03:06 +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: <199911051905.OAA25302@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > All right, my experience of the game is valueless, you say. I beg to > > >differ. > > Some of us think you are misapplying it for purposes of claims. I > think the origin of the problem is the false dichotomy in L70 between > 'normal' on the one hand and 'irrational' on the other. > No Steve, not a false dichotomy. A true negation, in stead. TFLB defines normal as 'not irrational'. Well sure, there are some other parts to the definition, but for the purposes of our discussion, a play is either irrational or normal. You need not determine whether a play is normal OR irrational, you only need to determine if it is irrational. The normality depends from that. > > It may strike you as irrational, but players do it. > ... > > We must always remember that different people play different ways. > > Observation and experience are helpful. > > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > Who can judge whether a player *might* or *might not* lead the 9 from > > J9x? I generally think they *might* and award a trick to the non- > > claimers > > David and John say that players will make odd plays if they play on, > and therefore such plays are normal. They are certainly correct. > D&J's point is that they are careless, and therefor normal. My point is that these plays are odd, _because_ they have played on. They are careless, and therefor normal, but they are made by a (class of) player who was not claiming. They do not provide a base of reference for the rationality of the claimer. > On the other hand, the plays talked about (e.g., low from J9x) fit > Grattan's dictionary's definition of irrational: something like > "without reason," I believe he said. My dictionary says "lacking usual > or normal mental clarity or coherence," or "not governed by or in > accordance with reason." By these definitions or similar ones, low > from J9x and the like are irrational. > Which is indeed what we are trying to establish. > So do we consider a line of play that is _both_ normal and irrational? That is a wrong question Steve. A play cannot be normal and irrational, by the very definition of the word normal. The question is and has always been, are they careless or irrational, hence normal or not. > It is hardly surprising that people disagree or even that there is a > trans-Atlantic difference of opinion. > Yes to the first, no the second. Why ? > In the short run, there is probably no urgent need for worldwide > harmony between the disparate interpretations. It would be nice to > achieve a consistent view at least within each NCBO and possibly within > each Zone, and I commend this problem to the various authorities. Why should there be a difference ? > There should also be a consistent interpretation for WBF events. In > the longer run, it might be useful to try to achieve a single, > worldwide interpretation, but I don't think this has as high priority > as some other matters. > > (I have, at least, learned to be very careful about claims if I ever > play bridge in Britain or France!) > You should also be careful about claims in America. > My own view, FWIW, is that the footnote to L70 says that irrational > lines are not to be considered, even if such lines are also normal. They cannot be ! > That explains why I consider David's experience not applicable to the > question at hand. It answers the question of 'normal' but not the > question of 'irrational'. > Which is the same question, nevertheless. > This is not, incidentally, a question of North Americans being more > generous to claimers. Remember the YC psychic 2H, allegedly a five > card suit but holding xx? Declarer had to pick up Kx opposite AQTxx. > Declarer claims without stating a line of play. Everyone will follow > to the K; is declarer deemed finesse the T next? This was IMPs, and > cashing guarantees the contract, but finessing makes a couple of > overtricks, so the IMP odds are something like 4:1. David says that > players do not, in practice, finesse. I agree; finessing is not > normal. Yet a rational calculation of the odds, combined with the > alleged psyching tendencies at the YC (bidding four-card suits as if > holding five), suggests that finessing is rational. So we have the > exact opposite of the situation above. Do we consider a line of play > that is not normal but is rational? David sticks with considering > 'normal' and gives declarer all the tricks. I wish to consider > 'rational' and say declarer loses the finesse. Both outcomes are > consistent with our respective approaches. I don't see what approach has to do with it. One considers the case, and determines if it is irrational or not. There should be no trans-atlantic ridge between them, although I realise that individuals will have a different view on it, and that view is tainted by your own experience. John was the only TD who would have gotten the YC claim right, and therefor, he did. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 22:03:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:03:50 +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 WAA21151 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:03:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-144.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.144]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12822 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:03:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3823FE08.EFB20345@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 11:08:08 +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: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <000201bf27b0$a5ffdf00$0eaa93c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >>David Stevenson wrote: > >>> It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. > > >Herman said > >>I agree with a statement of DWS. > > >+=+ There you go, David - wrong again! :-))) +=+ > LOL > That is very naughty, Grattan! Very funny, yes, true, but naughty! > > Quango would like you all to remember that Herman is often right. He > quotes a case in 1996 .... > LOL but also -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 22:03:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:03:54 +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 WAA21158 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:03:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-144.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.144]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12836 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:03:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38240284.64486BFD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 11:27:16 +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: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <199911052336.SAA25503@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Eric Landau > > Any method that can be indicated by checking a box (or circling an option) > > on the convention card should not be alertable. > > First, you better decide what you want to accomplish. You are all trying to accomplish the same thing, but you don't realise it. You are all saying as your first rule : "alert anything non-standard", and your second rule defines standard. > Eric and I, and > I think Marv, prefer an approach in which an alert would mean "This is > something _really_ strange; you want to ask." translated : standard = anything not _really_ strange. > On the other hand, the > EBU takes the view that you alert anything that is not natural and also > anything that's natural but in some way strange. translated : standard = natural. > The ACBL has yet a > different approach, where the intent is to alert anything that doesn't > conform to their notion of standard. translated : standard = what we say it is. > I wouldn't be surprised if other > jurisdictions derive their alert rules from yet different theories of > alerting. > I would be surprised if any alert procedure could not be reduced to a definition of standard methods. > Obviously all three of the above theories are viable, and reasonable > people can differ on which one they like best. > > Another whole question is what, if anything, should be announceable. > I have found it preferable to detach these two things. One should not let an alert depend on whether or not it was pre-announced. > I think our "alert only the really strange" approach could be > implemented by a small number of rules. I doubt that. The standard for doubles rule in Belgium is the simplest possible, and has not changed for 12 years. Yet people always tell me that they cannot remember. I think they don't want to. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 6 23:32:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 23:32:08 +1100 (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 XAA21286 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 23:31:59 +1100 (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 11k50V-000L2F-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:31:49 +0000 Message-ID: <+t9U$IA19BJ4EwkR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:30:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19991105193656.87997.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 >>We should draft a list of general principles concerning >>alert procedures. >>Not a general alert procedure, certainly not, because >>standards are far too different in different countries. >>But general principles. >This would be an interesting exercise. Yesterday I posted my principles (if >it can't be explained without recourse to actual writing (as opposed to the >"15 words" and "to", "through", +- et al), then it's alertable. Otherwise >it's on the CC.) The idea of alerting is to help the opponents, not to set up a framework so that they lose later rulings. Why should opponents have to refer to or remember CCs? This is not helpful. There are a lot of complaints on RGB, RGBO, and here about American alerting. Despite one recent one, we get very few complaints about English/Welsh alerting, or alerts elsewhere in the world. In fact, I think the second most common source of complaints is people who do not play in England or Wales complaining about English/Welsh alerting. Players from the ACBL who complain about alerting rarely come up with a solution similar to English/Welsh alerting: perhaps because they do not realise that people like it. In the clubs that I play in people are comfortable with alerts - much more comfortable than reading CCs. That does not suggest we have got alerting wrong. It is not particularly helpful to have people continually scanning CCs for information. Apart from the plethora of bad CCs, the game would run most freely when people feel least need to look at a CC without other compensating disruptions. Several people have suggested that the game would be better if there were fewer conventions, probably a lot fewer. They have said this as a reason to amend the alerting regs. I do not see this, myself. That seems like cutting down on polio vaccinations and hoping polio will disappear: you seem to be getting rid of the cure rather than the disease. If bridge would be better played without fancy conventions, so be it, organise bridge that way, and fewer alerts will follow. When people are comfortable with alerts, do not often have to refer to CCs and rarely have a Director problem then the system seems to be working well. That is the current situation in England/Wales. In the places where a lot of conventions are disliked [and the consequent alerting] let us reduce the number of conventions permitted. -------- So, what would be perfect alerting? It has to be either [a] Pretty accurate in letting people know they need to ask, so complex. [b] Fairly accurate in letting people know they need to ask, so with some complexity. [c] Not very accurate in letting people know they need to ask, but nice and simple. ACBL alerting is Type [a], EBU alerting is Type [b] and Australian alerting is Type [c]. My own feeling is that Type [c] alerting works best where the players are good and experienced. They know when to alert. If you try simple alerting with lesser players they alert at the wrong times, make the wrong inferences, and expect everyone to do things their way. Another question is to how carefully the rules need to be laid down, and in how much detail. The longest alert document I have seen is the French, which does not appear to say very much [!] The complexity of the ACBL Alert Chart seems to be one reason why there is so much complaint about ACBL Alerts, though I think another reason is that the ACBL does not make clear its alerting policy. Alerting needs a basis. Most countries seem to have a standard system for comparison. Belgium has two, and you are required to know which your opponents are playing, since their alerting depends on it. Americans claim not to know what Standard American means, but I do not believe them. England has a very wide range of natural systems, most of them called Acol. -------- My personal view is that the best alerting is reasonably simple, even if that leads to less efficiency. It should be based on the standard system of the NCBO except in major international events, when it should be based on natural bidding. It should be an alternative to the CC. It should not depend on players remembering or having to refer to their opponents' CC. Every NCBO should explain its alerting methods to its members. Letting them find out for themselves is not good enough. Also, it should be made clear that alerting is based on the Alerting Regulations. This will sometimes include the players own ideas - notably so in WBF and OKB alerting because of the international flavour. cc Ron Klinger -- 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 Nov 7 01:45:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 01:45:33 +1100 (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 BAA21518 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 01:45:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from p8cs11a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.91.141] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11k75J-0002VC-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:44:54 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:45:15 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2865$8a02a3e0$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: Saturday, November 06, 1999 3:41 AM Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure >In article <3.0.1.32.19991105170505.006a4898@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau > writes >>At 01:49 PM 11/5/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >> >>>We should draft a list of general principles concerning >>>alert procedures. >>>Not a general alert procedure, certainly not, because >>>standards are far too different in different countries. >>>But general principles. >>> >>>I propose one : >>> >>>Asking bids, in common situations, should not be alerted >>>solely based on the answering scheme. Answers to them >>>should be alerted if they differ from the standard meaning. >>> >>>Ex : 2NT-3Cl not alertable, no matter if it is Stayman, >>>Baron, Puppet or anything. >> >>Here's my contribution; I think Marv at least will approve... >> >>Any method that can be indicated by checking a box (or circling an option) >>on the convention card should not be alertable. > >Equally any method that can be circled or ticked can sensibly be >announced. I have a lot of time for announcing - it seems to work well >and the UI content is pretty low. > >I went round in circles tonight (UK alert regs) > >1S x 2D ? (btw it's clear P P 1S x 2D [NF] is not alertable in UK) > > alertable? alertable if forcing? alertable if non-forcing? > > what about 1C x 1S ? any difference On numerous EBU courses I have been told that this sequence is not alertable whether or not it is forcing. The logic applied is that half the world play it one way, and half the world play it the other way, hence the opponents have no "reason to expect" either one or the other. I assume that when it becomes that more play one way than the other, then the other becomes alertable. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 01:48:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 01:48:50 +1100 (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 BAA21538 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 01:48:41 +1100 (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 11k78n-00049t-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:48:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:02:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <3.0.1.32.19991105170505.006a4898@pop.cais.com> 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: >I went round in circles tonight (UK alert regs) > >1S x 2D ? (btw it's clear P P 1S x 2D [NF] is not alertable in UK) > > alertable? alertable if forcing? alertable if non-forcing? > > what about 1C x 1S ? any difference > >offers? let us know which jurisdiction as it may well be different in >ACBL, or Oz or wherever > >I'm not sure I know the answer btw - the FOB is not entirely clear here >to my mind. 5.4.4 You should not alert: (d) a natural response to an opening bid when a takeout double has intervened whether forcing or non-forcing Please explain the lack of clarity. -- 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 Nov 7 01:48:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 01:48:51 +1100 (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 BAA21539 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 01:48:41 +1100 (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 11k78n-00049s-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:48:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:15:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careles v irrational References: <02d101bf2823$ca6ef920$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <02d101bf2823$ca6ef920$622ed2cc@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: > >From: John (MadDog) Probst > > Marvin L. French writes" > >> >Followers of the UD (Unlimited Disclosure) philosophy will no doubt say >> >that dummy should immediately explain any such signals to defenders who >> >may not know their meaning, along with the possibility that they could >be >> >psychic. >> >> but only after the hand is over :)))) Laws 42 and 43 generally >> >Interesting. L42 does not give him this right, but L43A1(c) says he cannot >communicate anything about the play *to declarer*, implying that it is >okay to communicate something about the play to the defenders. > >Question: Can dummy correct MI after the opening lead is made, or during >the play, having realized the MI only at that time, or does s/he have to >wait until the play is over? I presume you mean his partner's explanation? If his own explanation is wrong then L75D1 applies, namely: If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C). So he should *never* wait: note the word "immediately". However, as I say, I presume you mean his partner's explanation is wrong. then L75D2 alpplies: A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a defender may not correct the error until play ends. After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy; after play ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous. As dummy, the time is not "before the final pass" so he should call the TD immediately: this is the earliest legal opportunity available to him. -- 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 Nov 7 02:58:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 02:58:13 +1100 (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 CAA21866 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 02:58:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from p7bs02a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.162.124] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11k8Dd-00010u-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:57:34 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:58:04 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf286f$b593b3a0$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: Saturday, November 06, 1999 11:21 AM Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure >Hello Michael, > >Michael Farebrother wrote: >> >> >From: Herman De Wael >> >> > >> >Asking bids, in common situations, should not be alerted >> >solely based on the answering scheme. Answers to them >> >should be alerted if they differ from the standard meaning. >> > >> I agree with the first sentence. But I draw the exact opposite conclusion >> from it... >> >> I don't think that Asking bids should be alerted based on the answering >> scheme. But they should be alerted. >> > >That depends on the regulating committee. My point is that >they should be alerted or not, depending on what you think >is most standard in your country, but that the alerting or >not should not depend on the answering scheme. > >> I have trouble with the second sentence, because it contains the word >> "standard", which means we have to define "standard". >> > >But that is what an alert regulation is all about. > >> The only problem I have with the EBU alert regs (having never played under >> them, so I could be missing huge gaps) is that the consequence is many >> "obvious" alerts. I.e. 1NT - 2D! (transfer); 2H! (may only have 2, partner >> asked me to do this). >> > >Indeed, in England you alert Stayman ! Indeed. The FLB tells us that an alert is a notification to the effect that the opponents may be in need of an explanation. No more. EBU/WBU regs say you must alert a bid if it is either not natural, or that the call may have a meaning that the opps might not expect. Hence, we alert 2C Stayman, because it is not natural, and we alert 2C anything else, inc WTO, because the opps might not expect this. David is scornful of the use of CCs, (do they use them in Blunellsands?) but there is no doubt that CCs give more useful information than an alert. An alert merely says, look at the CC or ask. I suggest that the alerting of calls because they are not natural is counterproductive when nobody expects the call to be natural anyway. The alerting of calls because the opps might not expect etc., is counterproductive as it only says look at the CC or ask. When we get to the alerting of doubles, a realm of fantasy for most. Players in general alert doubles at random. To expect players to become expert in the language which the OB uses to describe doubles, is to expect the Red Sox to win whatever it is they play. A well completed CC _is_ an alert. It meets the requirements of an alert as defined. It is that notification to which CH1 of the FLB refers. All this waving of an alert card, or tapping of the table (often mistaken for a pass), or even saying "alert" are an intrusion into the smooth running of an auction, especially one in which the opps are going to pass throughout anyway. The completion of CCs is a subject for a different thread. Until recently EBU regs insisted on CCs being of a particularly designed format dependant on the event. This was good, as club players who never played in WBF events did not have to navigate that card. The card in general use for club events had some drawbacks no doubt, but it was easy to read once you knew where to look for things. Now however I get presented with "CCs" which being PC generated are more like system notes, and are really difficulty for me (a TD)to understand let alone the average club player. Shall we call for a "standard" format once again? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 05:51:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 05:51:56 +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 FAA22260 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 05:51:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:51:37 -0800 Message-ID: <02dc01bf2887$e7a7e7e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:50:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 > > Equally any method that can be circled or ticked can sensibly be > announced. I have a lot of time for announcing - it seems to work well > and the UI content is pretty low. Announcements are good, but should be limited to what is on the cc--to save opponents the bother of looking. Anything on the cc can hardly be considered UI. Since the information is on the cc, announcements should be optional, and players told that failure of an opponent to announce something is not MI, because the meaning is right there on the cc and it their responsibility to look. Players could announce everything that is reflected on the cc, or anything they feel needs announcing, or nothing at all. Announcement errors could be a problem, but players will just have to become familiar with what is on their cc (It's illegal to look during the auction). Another problem could be selective announcing, just as selective use of the STOP card continues to be a problem. At least in pair games, players (not pairs) must decide what they are going to announce, and stick to that decision during a session. > I went round in circles tonight (UK alert regs) > > 1S x 2D ? (btw it's clear P P 1S x 2D [NF] is not alertable in UK) > > alertable? alertable if forcing? alertable if non-forcing? Not Alertable in either case in ACBL-land. The default understanding is non-forcing for either 1/1 or 2/1, and there is a black (non-Alert) box for each, to check if it is forcing. Even jump takeouts over a double are not Alertable, whether they are weak, invitational, or strong, and each of those meanings is given a black box for checking. Jump raises over a takeout double (or negative double) are not Alertable if weak, Alertable if strong, which accords so much with standard practice that there is no check box for either treatment, just a blank line for indicating the strong meaning. I edit the ACBL cc by putting a .bmp version into a paint program and deleting what I don't use, e.g., all the black boxes and labels that refer to action over a takeout double. This is legal. The editing makes room for larger fonts, easier for opponents to read. Wish everyone could/would do that. (excuse the digression, please) > > what about 1C x 1S ? any difference? No, see above. > > let us know which jurisdiction as it may well be different in > ACBL, or Oz or wherever > Some consider OZ to be a nickname for the ACBL. Not I, of course. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 06:12:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA22305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 06:12:57 +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 GAA22300 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 06:12:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:12:38 -0800 Message-ID: <030e01bf288a$d6912ea0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <02d101bf2823$ca6ef920$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: careles v irrational Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:12:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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:> > > >From: John (MadDog) Probst > > Marvin L. French writes" > > > >> >Followers of the UD (Unlimited Disclosure) philosophy will no doubt say > >> >that dummy should immediately explain any such signals to defenders who > >> >may not know their meaning, along with the possibility that they could > >be > >> >psychic. > >> > >> but only after the hand is over :)))) Laws 42 and 43 generally > >> > >Question: Can dummy correct MI after the opening lead is made, or during > >the play, having realized the MI only at that time, or does s/he have to > >wait until the play is over? > > I presume you mean his partner's explanation? Either one. > If his own explanation > is wrong then L75D1 applies > > So he should *never* wait: note the word "immediately". However, as I > say, I presume you mean his partner's explanation is wrong. then L75D2 > applies: > > As dummy, the time is not "before the final pass" so he should call > the TD immediately: this is the earliest legal opportunity available to > him. > Okay, thanks, that's what I was looking for. >From all this I infer that it would be okay for a UD practitioner to disclose (via the TD) that partner's signal during play has some significance, and that it could be a psych. Not doing so might be construed as MI. As might be obvious, I am trying to show that the UD philosophy can go to ridiculous lengths. My opinion is that *anything* which partner cannot utilize in some way, even a call or a defensive measure, is not a special *partnership* agreement, hence need not be disclosed. This principle is clearly correct when it is dummy who knows something about declarer's idiosyncracies in the play of the hand, but the principle extends further than that. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 06:45:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA22373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 06:45:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA22367 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 06:44:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([212.1.136.4]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 0294200 ; Sat, 06 Nov 1999 19:36:31 -0000 Message-ID: <037801bf288f$2b28ed00$048801d4@default> From: "magda.thain" To: , , Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 19:42:03 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 It does look as though Mike Dennis has the Power with him. In my own village partnership I do this, but of course I know how my partner plays and it would be hard to believe that players of great ability would not know, and would not tell their opponents what they know as we do. mt To: msd@mindspring.com ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 October 1999 12:33 Subject: Re: Logic of opening bids. >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 Sun Nov 7 07:23:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 07:23:59 +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 HAA22440 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 07:23:51 +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 PAA25195 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:23:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA26206 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:23:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:23:58 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911062023.PAA26206@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW> First, you better decide what you want to accomplish. Eric and I, and SW> I think Marv, prefer an approach in which an alert would mean "This is SW> something _really_ strange; you want to ask." > From: "Marvin L. French" > Sounds reasonable, yes, except it should be "You want to look at our > convention card." Marv is suggesting a different principle than I was. His is perhaps just as reasonable, but it would require more alerts. In Mike and my version, players would be expected to look at the convention card after nearly every opposing bid, at least early in the auction. Which one you prefer is very much a matter of taste. SW> The ACBL has yet a SW> different approach, where the intent is to alert anything that doesn't SW> conform to their notion of standard. > If that is indeed the intent, it has not been fulfilled. I was trying to summarize the underlying philosophy or theory of the regulations. It's not surprising that the implementation of the theory isn't perfect. > Here are some non-standard understandings that are not Alertable: > -- Natural strong two bids > -- Natural 2D, 2H, or 2S signoff response to a 1NT opening > -- Stayman 2C that does not promise a major I think the above fall within the ACBL's notion of "standard," though not necessarily anyone else's. As regards the middle one, note that anything else _is_ either alertable or announceable. > -- 1S response to a 1H opening that promises at least five spades. I agree that this is an inconsistency, and I'm surprised it's not alertable. I'll bet if you take a poll, most ACBL players would expect it to require an alert. > -- Cue bid over an opening 1-of-a-suit showing the top and bottom unbid > suits This one seems a matter of simplicity. Look, don't take my messages on this topic too seriously. The "takeaway point" is that there are _many_ theories of what alerts ought to be for, ranging from "eliminate them all" to "alert everything even slightly unusual." It's no good discussing specific rules until you decide what theory the rules ought to implement, and that's a matter of taste. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 07:35:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 07:35:44 +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 HAA22492 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 07:35:25 +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 PAA25357 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:35:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA26243 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:35:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:35:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911062035.PAA26243@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > You are all trying to accomplish the same thing, but you > don't realise it. > > You are all saying as your first rule : "alert anything > non-standard", and your second rule defines standard. Well, if you like to look at things this way, I suppose you can. The bottom line, though, is that alerts cover very different calls under the different theories. SW> Another whole question is what, if anything, should be announceable. > I have found it preferable to detach these two things. One > should not let an alert depend on whether or not it was > pre-announced. Sorry, I was referring to ACBL-style announcements in place of alerts, e.g. "transfer," spoken at the time the bid is made. SW> I think our "alert only the really strange" approach could be SW> implemented by a small number of rules. > I doubt that. The standard for doubles rule in Belgium is > the simplest possible, and has not changed for 12 years. > Yet people always tell me that they cannot remember. I How about alert a double if: a) it is a direct penalty double of a suit opening bid below 4S, or b) if it is a direct non-penalty double of a any other opening bid. I think you will agree this is simple, but of course it means very few doubles will be alertable. Should they be? That depends on your theory of alerting. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 07:46:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 07:46:22 +1100 (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 HAA22526 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 07:46:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.127] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11kCip-000B9U-00; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 20:46:03 +0000 Message-ID: <000301bf2897$ea619660$7f5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 20:22:45 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 06 November 1999 01:23 Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>>David Stevenson wrote: >>>> It would ruin the game to get rid of alerting. > >>Herman said >>>I agree with a statement of DWS. > >>+=+ There you go, David - wrong again! :-))) +=+ > > That is very naughty, Grattan! Very funny, yes, true, but naughty! > > Quango would like you all to remember that Herman is often right. He >quotes a case in 1996 .... > +=+ Us cats know that life is a ball for the wicked.+=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 07:46:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 07:46:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22527 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 07:46:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.127] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11kCiq-000B9U-00; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 20:46:04 +0000 Message-ID: <000401bf2897$eb235fc0$7f5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws List" Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 20:31:14 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: Jesper Dybdal ; Bridge Laws List Date: 05 November 1999 19:39 Subject: Re: careless v irrational > >From: Jesper Dybdal >>I find it reasonable to use the guideline that suits are taken >>from the top down - this corresponds to saying that any claim >>implicitly includes "taking my suits from the top down" unless >>something different is explicitly said. > +=+ I have actually suggested, for the WBFLC agenda, this as a footnote to law 70. I think it would save a lot of AC time if it were in the book. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 08:01:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 08:01:44 +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 IAA22582 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 08:01:36 +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 QAA26317 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:01:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA26374 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:01:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:01:39 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911062101.QAA26374@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Infraction after infraction Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A couple of days ago, I wrote (in part): > As long as both infractions are adjusted-score matters (not fixed > penalties), and we are applying L12C2: > b) The NOS get the best result "likely" with neither infraction. > ... there is room for argument about b). > You could give the NOS any benefit of "likely" with either infraction > separately (i.e. three possibilities). I don't think that's the > intent of L12C2, but it isn't explicit about multiple infractions. After consideration, I'm glad I put in that alternative. Consider the NOS position after one infraction. They may be entitled to a very favorable adjusted score. Why should a _second_ infraction by their opponents decrease their score? That doesn't seem right. Similarly, suppose the opponents had only committed the second infraction. Maybe the NOS would be in line for a good score from that; why should a prior infraction by their opponents take it away? So please forget the bit labelled b). If there are multiple infractions, I believe we should consider each one separately. The outcome will be that the NOS get the best score "likely" in any scenario _except_ one where _all_ the infractions took place. (If that's their best score, they very likely were not damaged by the infractions!) Sorry for sending without due consideration. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 08:18:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 08:18:21 +1100 (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 IAA22610 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 08:18:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from es.co.nz (p35-max6.dun.ihug.co.nz [209.77.130.99]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id KAA25676 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:18:06 +1300 Message-ID: <38249B63.4C34A57E@es.co.nz> Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 10:19:31 +1300 From: Albert/Mercer Family X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Call for official source of precedent/interpretation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'd like to second a motion which has been floating through various BLML threads recently (and not so recently) in favour of an *official* source of established interpretations. I think that this would be particularly valuable not so much in cases which are normally handled at the AC level (though it would be useful there too) but principally in cases which relate to procedural and disciplinary matters. As I understand it (short for "I'm probably completely wrong here, but am hedging my bets") the laws of golf are managed in this way. (And many people have suggested that golf and bridge share many features when it comes to how regulations are and should be enforced.) That is, there is an official little book with the laws of golf which many players carry around in their bags. There are also several volumes of interpretation to help with difficult situations (which most players know nothing about). "Kneeling on a towel to protect your pants is forbidden" is in there as is "So long as a rock is small enough that six (or sixteen) spectators can move it without disturbing the ball, then that's o.k." I realise that this is one of those "let's make more work for somebody else" suggestions, but it seems to me that a workable protocol could be developed which would not unduly tax the resources of the WBFLC. Here is a very rough suggestion: At the club level when a matter arises which the directing staff feel is inadequately addressed by the laws or precedents, a report is prepared to be forwarded to the national organisation. These reports are screened, and any deemed to raise important issues are forwarded to the WBFLC. Annually (or thereabouts) such of these as are deemed by the WBFLC to raise important issues are commented upon, and the commentaries officially added to "the book". Physical publication would be unnecessary -- locations where access to "the book" is deemed important would do so electronically. Two recent cases at our local club have emphasised to me how difficult it is to rule in these matters without adequate guidance. I'll post these separately because I think that the issues involved are interesting in themselves. Michael Albert From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 12:21:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:21:26 +1100 (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 MAA23069 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:21:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.108] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11kH15-000Ion-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 01:21:11 +0000 Message-ID: <003801bf28be$59a2c500$6c5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 01:10:02 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 November 1999 17:15 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >> >>I do not think this will convince you but... I do not believe that >>keeping quiet and relying on a later adjustment is the best way to help a >>developing partner improve her skills. Much better to get the MI sorted >>immediately and let her try applying judgment on the proper facts. > +=+ However high-minded the intent, the action is still illicit and improper. 'Much better' to comply with the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 12:33:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:33:46 +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 MAA23102 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:33:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:33:25 -0800 Message-ID: <033401bf28c0$05d76fa0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911062035.PAA26243@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:32:50 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: Herman De Wael > SW> Another whole question is what, if anything, should be announceable. > > > I have found it preferable to detach these two things. One > > should not let an alert depend on whether or not it was > > pre-announced. > > Sorry, I was referring to ACBL-style announcements in place of alerts, > e.g. "transfer," spoken at the time the bid is made. Let's all agree that "Announce" means explaining a call immediately when made by partner. We must have an agreed vocabulary for such things, or there will be chaos. > > SW> I think our "alert only the really strange" approach could be > SW> implemented by a small number of rules. > > > I doubt that. The standard for doubles rule in Belgium is > > the simplest possible, and has not changed for 12 years. > > Yet people always tell me that they cannot remember. I > > How about alert a double if: a) it is a direct penalty double of a suit > opening bid below 4S, or b) if it is a direct non-penalty double of a > any other opening bid. > > I think you will agree this is simple, but of course it means very few > doubles will be alertable. Should they be? That depends on your theory > of alerting. That's very good, but covers only direct doubles of opening bids. There are three general classes of non-conventional doubles: (1) takeout (but always can be left in), (2) penalty (but sometimes can be taken out), and (3) just "cards" (ready for anything). I'd put it this way: Alert only (all instances of) these: a) Non-penalty doubles after partner has acted ["acted" includes passes that show strength] b) Double of a suit bid below 4S, at the first opporunity to double that suit, if not for takeout. [includes both direct and reopening doubles] c) Non-penalty doubles of notrump bids d) Non-penalty doubles by a notrump bidder In case of conflict, a higher rule dominates a lower one. That makes the following doubles Alertable, among others, in the interest of simplicity. None of them has a universally accepted meaning among less- experienced players. Standard negative doubles (partner has acted) 1x-1y/2y-P-P; Dbl for penalty (first opportunity to double y suit) 1x-1y-P-P; 2x-Dbl for takeout (not the first opportunity to double x suit) 1NT-2x-P-P; Dbl for takeout (by a notrump bidder) 1x-P-2x-P; P-Dbl for takeout (not first opporunity to double x suit) 1x-P-1NT-Dbl for takeout (double of a notrump bid) 1x-Dbl-P-1y; P-2x-Dbl for takeout (partner has acted, even though not voluntarily) Marv (Marvin L. French) After two martinis, please excuse any blunders From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 15:02:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA23331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 15:02:13 +1100 (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 PAA23326 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 15:02:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ma210014 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:58:44 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-221-34.tmns.net.au ([139.134.221.34]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Relativistic-MailRouter V2.5 5/1376228); 07 Nov 1999 13:58:44 Message-ID: <000401bf2973$92b0c760$22dd868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:28:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 John Probst wrote: >> .......what about 1C x 1S ? any difference? >> >> let us know which jurisdiction as it may well be different in >> ACBL, or Oz or wherever Marv French replied: >Some consider OZ to be a nickname for the ACBL. Not I, of course. > During yesterday's referendum, my country's nickname Oz was *spot on*. Now that we have voted to retain our constitutional link to John's country, some would say that Oz is still appropriate. :-) In Australia, nobody alerts the auctions which John describes. In an earlier post DWS accurately described the Alerts Procedure in Oz as "relatively simple". Perhaps Marv French would see a connection with the growth in bridge at grassroots level in Oz? Peter Gill Sydney Oz (Australia). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 16:56:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 16:56:01 +1100 (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 QAA23452 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 16:55:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehei.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.210]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA16310 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 00:55:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991107005305.0130a6e0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 00:53:05 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <003801bf28be$59a2c500$6c5108c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >+=+ However high-minded the intent, the >action is still illicit and improper. 'Much >better' to comply with the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > This is at least the second time this type of charge has been made. David suggested that it is "illegal, not to mention unethical and immoral". Are you asserting that this offense, if such it is, is not merely illegal (as per the WBF LC), but unethical beyond the normal implication of legal impropriety, or is this merely rhetorical overkill? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 16:58:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 16:58:59 +1100 (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 QAA23466 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 16:58:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehei.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.210]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA28179 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 00:58:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991107005606.0130d084@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 00:56:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: References: <199911012345.SAA21637@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:03 PM 11/2/99 -0500, David G wrote: >There are many cases in which ethics and Laws demand something which cannot >be enforced; players are expected to obey them anyway. > >For example, suppose you hold Kxxx xx QJxx xxx. Partner opens 2NT, and you >bid 3C, intended as Stayman. Partner alerts, and explains to the opponents >that your bid is Puppet Stayman, then bids 3D; playing Puppet, this shows >rather than denying a four-card major. You would have bid 3C playing >Puppet, and could thus use the UI to recover by bidding the correct 3H. >There is no way anyone can impose a penalty unless you admit that you used >the UI. However, the Laws still require you to bid 3NT. > Certainly there is a vast universe of hypothetical cases similar to the one you offer, and as well a somewhat smaller (but still substantial) number of instances in the real-world where enforcement of the Laws rests on individual conscience. But the Laws which are being obeyed (or violated) still provide objective standards against which behavior can _usually_ be measured. To interpret L73B1 as disallowing "partner's benefit" questions is to place that law in a class by itself: the only one on the books where the distinction between legal and illegal behavior is defined solely by the intention of the player concerned. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 20:07:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:07:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23681 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:07:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.145.217]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19991107091131.ITIU74619.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 22:11:31 +1300 Message-ID: <382540D9.A7D7634D@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 22:05:29 +1300 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Incorrect Quitted Trick Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brd 13 107 All Vul 98653 Dealer N A643 A4 J853 AK64 AJ7 K42 J7 10 J1092 K8753 Q92 Q10 KQ9852 Q6 W N E S - P 1C 1D 2C 2H 3C P P 3D P P 3S P P P Lead H3 This went to the Q and West's Ace Three rounds of trumps followed South in with the SQ led a Diamond to partner's Ace and a diamond was returned and ruffed on dummy Events now took an unusual course: Declarer played the heart four to his Jack but in quitting this trick dummy turned down the heart King and apparently noone noticed this irregularity. Declarer ran a club to South's Queen and the King of diamonds was led to and held the next trick with declarer pitching a club from hand and a "heart" (his precise wording) from table. Declarer ruffed the next diamond and continued clubs. North winning and begins cashing his remaining (now good) hearts. Declarer now comments "What happened to my King of Hearts?" Result 3S W -3 If the King of Hearts had not been quitted in error (agreed fact) and declarer had not pitched it on the third round of diamonds (likely) then the result would have been 3S W -1 Is there any basis for adjusting the score? Would you make a different ruling(s) if Declarer had said "pitch the four of hearts" or "low heart" rather than just "heart"? -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 7 20:16:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:16:39 +1100 (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 UAA23710 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:16:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 04:08:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <+t9U$IA19BJ4EwkR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com> <19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 04:08:51 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson writes: > The idea of alerting is to help the opponents, not to set up a >framework so that they lose later rulings. Why should opponents have to >refer to or remember CCs? This is not helpful. Um. Seems obvious to ask here, then why require CCs at all? I was introduced to duplicate, after a long hiatus from rubber bridge, at a club in Gosport (near Portsmouth) during a tour of duty at HMS Centurion (1990-1993). There I learned to have my convention card available for opponents, and to expect them to have one handy for me. If I had a question (alert or no alert) I could usually find the answer on their card. If not, _then_ I would ask questions. Imagine my surprise to discover that in this country one is lucky if _either_ opponent has a CC, and even luckier if she'll make it available unless one asks. And then one finds it says "SA" at the top, and the rest is blank. Maybe my personal bias is due to that sequence of experience, but I would _much_ rather see the CC rules enforced than to have the ACBL decide CCs are a waste of time. I don't have a problem with the concept of alerting (though I'm not enamored of the ACBL implementation), but I think that the first step in full disclosure should be a well designed CC (that's the ZO's or SO's responsibility, IMO), the second is to make (and enforce!) a regulation that requires players to fill it out and make it available to opps, and the third is to train players to look at the damn thing when they have a question. There are more steps after that, of course, but these should be fundamental. Or so it seems to me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBOCVDZr2UW3au93vOEQIiHgCgwx/YhaehNdZkQb8HobH/5o5gyU8AoLM2 1KX4UhhdZ78s3/FEo806eXeG =IbS2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 00:21:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 00:21:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23966 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 00:20:53 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id xUVF.oM.t_ (4560); Sun, 7 Nov 1999 08:20:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.da4d83a0.2556d686@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 08:20:06 EST Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure To: ereppert@rochester.rr.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/7/99 4:18:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, ereppert@rochester.rr.com writes: > and the > third is to train players to look at the damn thing when they have a > question. There are more steps after that, of course, but these should be > fundamental. Or so it seems to me. > Right on! The further steps then can become a very much abbreviated Alert procedure only treating with those really "far out" meanings. In fact, the CC can have a place where it says, for instance, "PLEASE ASK about the following calls." Remember, the Alert Procedure started when it became clear thatthe CC was being abused. We fixed that with a band-aid, which has now become a shroud. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 00:32:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 00:32:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe17.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA24017 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 00:32:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 19698 invoked by uid 65534); 7 Nov 1999 13:31:34 -0000 Message-ID: <19991107133134.19697.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.166.64] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <382540D9.A7D7634D@xtra.co.nz> Subject: Re: Incorrect Quitted Trick Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 07:31:12 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 initial reaction was that the errant trick was a defective trick because declarer designated the H4 but the H4 was not quitted. Inspection of L67 shows that it does not support as defective a trick where the designated card was substituted by a different card. Actually, the HK was an illegal change of play per L47F that is too late to withdraw L45D. L45E2 says that declarer suffers no penalty for this play. It being too late to penalize the illegal play, it is treated as legal, L60A2. Result stands. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: wayne To: BLML Group Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 3:05 AM Subject: Incorrect Quitted Trick > Brd 13 107 > All Vul 98653 > Dealer N A643 > A4 > J853 AK64 > AJ7 K42 > J7 10 > J1092 K8753 > Q92 > Q10 > KQ9852 > Q6 > > W N E S > - P 1C 1D > 2C 2H 3C P > P 3D P P > 3S P P P > > Lead H3 > > This went to the Q and West's Ace > Three rounds of trumps followed > South in with the SQ led a Diamond to partner's Ace and a diamond was > returned and ruffed on dummy > > Events now took an unusual course: > > Declarer played the heart four to his Jack but in quitting this trick > dummy turned down the heart King and apparently noone noticed this > irregularity. > > Declarer ran a club to South's Queen and the King of diamonds was led to > and held the next trick with declarer pitching a club from hand and a > "heart" (his precise wording) from table. > > Declarer ruffed the next diamond and continued clubs. North winning and > begins cashing his remaining (now good) hearts. > > Declarer now comments "What happened to my King of Hearts?" > > Result 3S W -3 > > If the King of Hearts had not been quitted in error (agreed fact) and > declarer had not pitched it on the third round of diamonds (likely) then > the result would have been 3S W -1 > > Is there any basis for adjusting the score? > > Would you make a different ruling(s) if Declarer had said "pitch the > four of hearts" or "low heart" rather than just "heart"? no. > > -- > Wayne Burrows > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 02:51:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 02:51:22 +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 CAA24510 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 02:51:14 +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 11kUar-000FNj-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 15:51:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 04:46:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <01bf286f$b593b3a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf286f$b593b3a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Indeed. The FLB tells us that an alert is a notification to the effect that >the opponents may be in need of an explanation. >No more. >EBU/WBU regs say you must alert a bid if it is either not natural, or that >the call may have a meaning that the opps might not expect. >Hence, we alert 2C Stayman, because it is not natural, and we alert 2C >anything else, inc WTO, because the opps might not expect this. >David is scornful of the use of CCs, (do they use them in Blunellsands?) but >there is no doubt that CCs give more useful information than an alert. An >alert merely says, look at the CC or ask. I have never shown the least scorn at the use of CCs. I believe CCs are a good adjunct to the process of informing one's opponents and have never said otherwise. >I suggest that the alerting of calls because they are not natural is >counterproductive when nobody expects the call to be natural anyway. The >alerting of calls because the opps might not expect etc., is >counterproductive as it only says look at the CC or ask. Of course, this is wrong. The advantage of the alert system is that people know whether to bother to do anything else about it. That is why club players like it: they don't need to start thumbing through a CC for an unalerted call. >When we get to the alerting of doubles, a realm of fantasy for most. Players >in general alert doubles at random. To expect players to become expert in >the language which the OB uses to describe doubles, is to expect the Red Sox >to win whatever it is they play. Very funny, Anne. If a double is normally for takeout in British normal methods then you do not alert it if it is for takeout, and similarly for penalties. if it is not as standard practice then you alert. Why is this difficult? Because people pretend it is! >A well completed CC _is_ an alert. It meets the requirements of an alert as >defined. No, it does not. An alert tells you whether you need to do anything about this one specific call. A CC does not do that: you have to search through it to find the call. Alerting is so much simpler. >It is that notification to which CH1 of the FLB refers. >All this waving of an alert card, or tapping of the table (often mistaken >for a pass), or even saying "alert" are an intrusion into the smooth running >of an auction, especially one in which the opps are going to pass throughout >anyway. No, it is not alerting that makes the game run less smoothly. Take alerts away, and we are back to the stop-go of an earlier generation, where you had to adopt much slower and less satisfactory methods to find out if the opponents were playing strange things - or not bother and suffer the consequences. >The completion of CCs is a subject for a different thread. Until recently >EBU regs insisted on CCs being of a particularly designed format dependant >on the event. As they do now, of course. >This was good, as club players who never played in WBF events did not have >to navigate that card. The card in general use for club events had some >drawbacks no doubt, but it was easy to read once you knew where to look for >things. Now however I get presented with "CCs" which being PC generated are >more like system notes, and are really difficulty for me (a TD)to understand >let alone the average club player. Shall we call for a "standard" format >once again? You mean like the one in the current regulations? -- 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 Mon Nov 8 03:45:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 03:24:48 +1100 (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 DAA24557 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 03:24:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA25531 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 17:24:26 +0100 Received: from ip154.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.154), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb25527; Sun Nov 7 17:24:24 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 17:24:24 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com> <+t9U$IA19BJ4EwkR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <+t9U$IA19BJ4EwkR@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 DAA24558 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:30:45 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > My personal view is that the best alerting is reasonably simple, even >if that leads to less efficiency. It should be based on the standard >system of the NCBO except in major international events, when it should >be based on natural bidding. It should be an alternative to the CC. It >should not depend on players remembering or having to refer to their >opponents' CC. I agree. The Danish alert rules are similar - though not equal - to the EBU ones. They are simple, and therefore not always logical. Most people seem to have only few problems with them. We basically alert calls that either (a) are artificial, or (b) can be expected to come as a surprise for opponents. I sometimes get the idea that two different alert types for these two differents categories of calls might be desirable. I.e., one alert type that means (a), and another that means (b). Example: 2D multi would require an (a) alert. In places where multi is unusual, it would _also_ require a (b) alert. I am afraid it will not work in practice (because of the complexity of having two alert types), but in theory it should be an improvement. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 04:09:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 04:09:53 +1100 (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 EAA24663 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 04:09:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivego9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.9]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA06459; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:09:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991107120654.01321f64@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 12:06:54 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Cc: mail@bridgeworld.com In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991107005606.0130d084@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199911012345.SAA21637@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In an attempt to clear up some of the confusion regarding the apparent discrepancy between the position staked out by Kaplan in the 1981 BW editorial and the understanding of his views conveyed by Grattan, I have been in touch with Jeff Rubens. FWIW, he has confirmed that to the best of his knowledge (which is not inconsiderable), Kaplan never retreated from his position on this question. He also confirmed the man's tendency to couch his opinions in language which would be acceptable to his immediate listeners, especially where matters of bridge law politics were concerned. Finally, he reaffirmed the editorial position of The Bridge World that motivation and purpose are irrelevant to the determination of the legality of these types of questions. Again, I would like to make clear that neither the editorial stance of one of the premier bridge journals nor the evident opinion of even such a giant as Edgar Kaplan should be regarded in any way as dispositive, beyond conferring a certain legitimacy upon the minority viewpoint. For me, the strength of this position rests on its clear and direct derivation from the language of the text, its convergence with an important underlying bridge value, and on the practical limitations of an interpretation with no objective standard for enforcement. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 04:29:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 04:29:41 +1100 (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 EAA24741 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 04:29:33 +1100 (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 MAA08862; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:29:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA095675757; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:29:17 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA183875756; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:29:16 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:29:05 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, mlfrench@writeme.com 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 EAA24742 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If that is indeed the intent, it has not been fulfilled. Here are some non-standard understandings that are not Alertable: -- Natural strong two bids -- 1S response to a 1H opening that promises at least five spades. -- Natural 2D, 2H, or 2S signoff response to a 1NT opening -- Stayman 2C that does not promise a major But 2N rebid is alertable if not promising a major 1N - P - 2C (non alertable) 2D -P - 2N (alert) not so evident.... Laval Du Breuil -- Cue bid over an opening 1-of-a-suit showing the top and bottom unbid suits I am not saying they should be Alerted, but whatever Alert philosophy is adopted should be consistently applied, with exceptions appropriate only when they support the goal of simplicity. Marv (Marvin L. French). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 04:45:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 03:24:35 +1100 (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 DAA24549 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 03:24:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 31680 invoked by uid 65534); 7 Nov 1999 16:23:37 -0000 Message-ID: <19991107162337.31679.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.161.215] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <0.da4d83a0.2556d686@aol.com> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:23:26 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry Kojak, meant to send to the list only. I do think that Kojak is right. That the precedent of opting that the use of the question be the primary method of disclosure while dispensing with the CC being the controlling document has led to misguiding the wandering bridge players. Not to mention quibbling over the effects of MI, UI, and CPUs. That players openly consent to restricting the materials of their trade to a pack of cards, a pencil, and score pad is an eminently successful approach. The aspect of tournament with multiple opponents lends itself to the expediency of the written [and legible] document- even if time consuming, it is superior to the frequent question, not withstanding opinions to the contrary. I should think that a pound of preparation is worth avoiding a ton of cure. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 7:20 AM Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure > In a message dated 11/7/99 4:18:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, > ereppert@rochester.rr.com writes: > > > and the > > third is to train players to look at the damn thing when they have a > > question. There are more steps after that, of course, but these should be > > fundamental. Or so it seems to me. > > > > Right on! The further steps then can become a very much abbreviated Alert > procedure only treating with those really "far out" meanings. In fact, the CC > can have a place where it says, for instance, "PLEASE ASK about the > following calls." Remember, the Alert Procedure started when it became clear > thatthe CC was being abused. We fixed that with a band-aid, which has now > become a shroud. Kojak > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 05:27:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 05:27:34 +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 FAA24897 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 05:26:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:18:36 -0800 Message-ID: <035401bf294c$69d84e20$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911062023.PAA26206@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:16:53 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > SW> First, you better decide what you want to accomplish. Eric and I, and > SW> I think Marv, prefer an approach in which an alert would mean "This is > SW> something _really_ strange; you want to ask." > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Here are some non-standard understandings that are not Alertable: > > -- Natural strong two bids > > -- Natural 2D, 2H, or 2S signoff response to a 1NT opening > > -- Stayman 2C that does not promise a major > > I think the above fall within the ACBL's notion of "standard," though > not necessarily anyone else's. Can't believe that. Maybe the last. > As regards the middle one, note that > anything else _is_ either alertable or announceable. Yes, that makes no Alert logical in a way, but opponents will always ask. Better to Announce or Alert the natural meaning too, since it is so unexpected. It is interesting that if a 2D/2H/2S response to 1NT is natural, but not a signoff, it must be Alerted! > > > -- 1S response to a 1H opening that promises at least five spades. > > I agree that this is an inconsistency, and I'm surprised it's not > alertable. I'll bet if you take a poll, most ACBL players would expect > it to require an alert. Yes. Together with 1H-P-1NT bypassing four spades, which is also not Alertable, contrary to the general bypass rules. The Alert Procedure says these agreements "have become expected and fairly common; therefore, no Alert is required." Isn't it obvious that these rules cater to some influential Flannery devotee(s)? Any undue influence has been hotly denied by at least one ACBL board member, but I see no other explanation. Remembering that years ago somebody got C. C. Wei's Precision 1D opening (a convention) approved during an ACBL moratorium on new conventions, I can't be blamed for being skeptical. > > > -- Cue bid over an opening 1-of-a-suit showing the top and bottom unbid > > suits > > This one seems a matter of simplicity. I would agree, except that it is so unusual that not Alerting it is strange when the philosophy is to Alert unusual meanings. It could be that it is actually Alertable, since the Alert Procedure says that a cue bid must be Alerted if "it has an unusual or unexpected meaning." This one would seem to qualify, but the general belief among players and TDs is that cue bids are not Alertable, period. > > Look, don't take my messages on this topic too seriously. Don't mean to do so, but some of your points seem worthy of discussion. > The > "takeaway point" is that there are _many_ theories of what alerts ought > to be for, ranging from "eliminate them all" to "alert everything even > slightly unusual." It's no good discussing specific rules until you > decide what theory the rules ought to implement, and that's a matter of > taste. One of the major issues is how far to go when compromising theory for the sake of simplicity. When there is a conflict, my vote is for simplicity. Something no one has mentioned: Shouldn't players be encouraged to skip Alerts when it is certain their side will be playing the contract, and the information is surely not going to be needed by the opposition until it is time for the opening lead? Unnecessary Alerts during the auction not only generate needless UI, but slow things down. Someone mentioned how the Alert of Puppet Stayman could be useful UI to a responder who has forgotten that agreement. Another possibility is to shorten an Alert explanation by generalizing instead of giving unnecessary specifics. 1S-P-4C, Alert! Explanation: "Artificial, says nothing about clubs," and later, before the opening lead, "The four club bid was Swiss, showing 15-16 high card points and four-card or better spade support." If opener has forgotten the agreement to abandon Swiss in favor of Gerber or whatever, no harmful UI has been passed. But now I'm introducing complications! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 05:49:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 05:49:14 +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 FAA24996 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 05:49:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:48:59 -0800 Message-ID: <036c01bf2950$a7ccc2c0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <38249B63.4C34A57E@es.co.nz> Subject: Re: Call for official source of precedent/interpretation Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:48:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: > I'd like to second a motion which has been floating through various BLML > threads recently (and not so recently) in favour of an *official* source > of established interpretations. I think that this would be particularly > valuable not so much in cases which are normally handled at the AC level > (though it would be useful there too) but principally in cases which > relate to procedural and disciplinary matters. > and other good stuff. The ACBL used to have a note on the cc form that required all non-standard calls to be Alerted, and yet failed to define "standard" anywhere, even by reference. If the word "standard" or equivalent ("expected," "normal," etc.) is used, then it should be defined somewhere. I once wrote a Standard Bidding Specification (SBS) for a proposed lower-tier division of the ACBL that would be restricted to the understandings contained therein. I tried to itemize every common bidding sequence, giving the specification for the last call shown in terms of the message it carried (e.g., forcing, invitational, or signofff). It wasn't too difficult, since I always agreed with myself. A consensus for every such meaning would be impossible to obtain, but that wouldn't matter. Players would be required to disclose in some way any significant deviations from the SBS, which could be revised from time to time, maybe every five years or so. They would, of course, be expected to have familiarity with the SBS, which is not asking too much. Participants in other games must have extensive knowledge about their rules, as Michael pointed out. Why should bridge be an exception? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 06:20:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 06:20:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f70.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA25046 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 06:20:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 33238 invoked by uid 0); 7 Nov 1999 19:19:45 -0000 Message-ID: <19991107191945.33237.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.129.244 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 07 Nov 1999 11:19:44 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.129.244] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 19:19:44 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > Here's my contribution; I think Marv at least will approve... > > > > Any method that can be indicated by checking a box (or circling an > >option) on the convention card should not be alertable. > I have agreed with this, and with the caveat that some boxes on the current ACBL convention card should be removed (I don't think it should be required for everyone to be able to recognize Maximal doubles, for example, to play tournament bridge). However: >Yes, none of these should be Alertable. Let players look at the >opposing >cc for the meanings of calls. Moreover, no questions allowed >if the >answers are on the cc, except by those with eye problems. > I disagree with this. I want to limit the "non-alert" procedure to those things that aren't written down. It is currently impossible to get people (at least in this SO) to a) write legibly; b) give enough imformation that random tournament player will understand, never mind know that they have to look. Again: If there's a checkbox on the card, or a well-known space to put in a HCP range, or a "through X" range - not alertable, check. If it has to be written down - alert. After all, my card has "strong club defence" on it...should I not alert my 2C-disturbing, 44+ C+D? I'll have a complete response to others, but I thought I should draw my line specifically before I am deemed to have crossed it :-). Michael. > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 07:14:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:14:52 +1100 (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 HAA25137 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:14:44 +1100 (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 JAA29519 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:14:36 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991108091521.0095ec40@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 09:15:21 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: The case of the curious claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Scene: Final round of the club pairs championships Persona: NS the competition leaders and near-certain winners, EW supporting cast. Contract: An unusual 6D by south (the room will be in 3N) As the lights go up declarer has yet to lose a trick and the remaining cards we can see are: 8/K/-/AK7 -/AQ/-/QT9 -/JT/-/345 -/92/-/J82 The hand has, not surprisingly, taken some time to play, and the next round is well under way at other tables. The lead is in the south. At this point west faces his hand and claims two tricks "at the end". "Plain as a pikestaff" all agree, and the score is entered. As the next board begins, erstwhile south (we're playing a Howell) realises that after a club to dummy, the final spade squeezes west into unguarding the clubs, or an endplay. Director is called. Now from a legal point of view there is no problem. A concession has been made, and in attempting to cancel it the "careless but not irrational" mantle falls upon the originally acquiescing side. Since the squeeze is not positional it would not be irrational to play to squeeze east instead (no cards were marked on the bidding or play), or simply to try and drop an original doubleton club (less likely on previous play.) So why bring it up? The question arises whether west might have seen what was about to happen, made a "quick and dirty" claim (albeit of quite a common type) and hoped that time pressure would push it through. How is one meant to deal with this? (South could have saved us all this difficulty by playing for hA onside all along -- dummy originally had other hearts with the king, but then I wouldn't have a story to tell.) --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Nov 8 07:30:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:30:18 +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 HAA25174 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:30:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:30:01 -0800 Message-ID: <038f01bf295e$c4209ec0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com><19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:22:41 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Repper wrote: > David Stevenson writes: > > > The idea of alerting is to help the opponents, not to set up a > >framework so that they lose later rulings. Why should opponents have to > >refer to or remember CCs? This is not helpful. > > Um. Seems obvious to ask here, then why require CCs at all? > > I was introduced to duplicate, after a long hiatus from rubber bridge, at a > club in Gosport (near Portsmouth) during a tour of duty at HMS Centurion > (1990-1993). There I learned to have my convention card available for > opponents, and to expect them to have one handy for me. If I had a question > (alert or no alert) I could usually find the answer on their card. If not, > _then_ I would ask questions. Imagine my surprise to discover that in this > country one is lucky if _either_ opponent has a CC, and even luckier if > she'll make it available unless one asks. And then one finds it says "SA" > at the top, and the rest is blank. Maybe my personal bias is due to that > sequence of experience, but I would _much_ rather see the CC rules enforced > than to have the ACBL decide CCs are a waste of time. > > I don't have a problem with the concept of alerting (though I'm not > enamored of the ACBL implementation), but I think that the first step in > full disclosure should be a well designed CC (that's the ZO's or SO's > responsibility, IMO), the second is to make (and enforce!) a regulation > that requires players to fill it out and make it available to opps, and the > third is to train players to look at the damn thing when they have a > question. There are more steps after that, of course, but these should be > fundamental. Or so it seems to me. > And to most of us non-pros. In my experience, many (if not a majority) of pros do not like the use of ccs for the purpose of disclosure, preferring that disclosure come via questioning. They maintain that the only good purpose for ccs is to document partnership understandings, both for the partnership's benefit and for evidence in TD/AC legal proceedings. As a result, you see pros who have no cc in view, with clients' cc in a purse or pocket, not on the table. When there are two ccs, they have unreadable scribbling on them. One of the top players in the U.S. uses a scribbled cc for client partnerships that is many years out of date, hence illegal. He reluctantly drags it out when required to do so. One of the most prominent members of the Competition and Conventions committee bad-mouthed the cc regulations regularly, and had none himself the last time I played against him and a client. The cc regulations provide severe measures for violations, but my experience has been they are never enforced. Afraid to offend the influential?? Unenforced rules are worse than no rules. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 07:34:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:34:05 +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 HAA25189 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:33:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:33:47 -0800 Message-ID: <039601bf295f$4ac7c020$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com><19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:31:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Repper wrote: > David Stevenson writes: > > > The idea of alerting is to help the opponents, not to set up a > >framework so that they lose later rulings. Why should opponents have to > >refer to or remember CCs? This is not helpful. > > Um. Seems obvious to ask here, then why require CCs at all? > > > I don't have a problem with the concept of alerting (though I'm not > enamored of the ACBL implementation), but I think that the first step in > full disclosure should be a well designed CC (that's the ZO's or SO's > responsibility, IMO), the second is to make (and enforce!) a regulation > that requires players to fill it out and make it available to opps, and the > third is to train players to look at the damn thing when they have a > question. There are more steps after that, of course, but these should be > fundamental. Or so it seems to me. > And to most of us non-pros. In my experience, many (if not a majority) of pros do not like the use of ccs for the purpose of disclosure, preferring that disclosure come via questioning. They maintain that the only good purpose for ccs is to document partnership understandings, both for the partnership's benefit and for evidence in TD/AC legal proceedings. As a result, you see pros who have no cc in view, with clients' cc in a purse or pocket, not on the table. When there are two ccs, they have unreadable scribbling on them. One of the top players in the U.S. uses a scribbled cc for client partnerships that is many years out of date, hence illegal. He reluctantly drags it out when required to do so. One of the most prominent members of the Competition and Conventions committee bad-mouthed the cc regulations regularly, and had none himself the last time I played against him and a client. The cc regulations provide severe measures for violations, but my experience has been they are never enforced. Afraid to offend the influential? Unenforced rules are worse than no rules I want to glance at a pro's cc without his knowing that I am interested in something on it. I don't like "pro questions," which would be even more frequent in the absence of ccs. Let client look at our cc if sh/e should know something that is disclosed there. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 08:13:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:13:25 +1100 (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 IAA25376 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:13:18 +1100 (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 KAA19069 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:13:12 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991108101358.00972630@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:13:58 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: The case of the angry absentee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Scene: Second to last round of the club pairs championships Persona: Two contending pairs. N is playing director (owing to the scheduled director being called in to work at the last moment.) EW have an alert-ridden auction to 4H by W. South on lead asks for an explanation of some calls. W makes an explanation, which E points out is a little incomplete. W now remarks that he wouldn't expect S to give a complete explanation so why should he? S takes offense (not unreasonably though the initial remark was intended as flippant.) Now things get a bit serious ... but in a quiet sort of Kiwi way, for example the club recorder sitting at the next table never realised that there was a problem. Anyhow, the allegation is repeated, S demands an apology, seconded by E, one is given, S claims it is insincere (possibly with some justifaction). S decides he has been intolerably provoked and simply leaves the table. Subsequently S returns and plays the remainder of the session (but not the two boards scheduled against this EW). After S's departure the hapless director's assistant (yours truly) is called to the table by E, and promptly sent away again by N (the playing director) with words to the effect of "we'll sort it out at the end of the session". At the end of the session I'm told by the director that boards A+B will require an adjusted score as "we" refused to play them. I check that "we" means NS and not everyone at the table. I do not know the facts in the paragraph above, nor do I make any effort to determine at this time what precipitated the refusal. I rule, routinely as far as I am concerned, 60% to EW, 40% to NS, plus a 40% procedural penalty to NS, so effectively 60-0. I also make a serious procedural error -- I'm so attuned to the notion that the adjustment is automatic (and expected by all parties concerned) that I don't specifically tell them the results of the adjustment. I also inform the club recorder and club captain that there has obviously been some sort of "incident" which may well require a disciplinary investigation/hearing, and make sure that they recognise that the situation is quite serious. On my own, I find out, largely from EW the course of events. When S discovers the results of the adjustment he is most upset. He argues that as the injured, non-offending party, he if anyone should be getting the 60% board, and EW the 0. He demands a re-adjustment, and continues to do so. This is the sort of issue on which I think official procedural guidance would be useful. The logic which I used to decide my adjustment was that given the unilateral action by S in causing the boards to become unplayable, it was not up to me in deciding the score adjustment for those particular boards to address any further issues (though I expected them to be addressed in subsequent investigation.) Effectively, by walking out, I maintain that S changed a single infraction of proprieties by W, into two infractions, the second of which (his own) was what caused the boards to become unplayable. Had S properly called me while the dispute was taking place, then I would have been in a position to try and defuse the situation (probably impossible) and convince the players to play the boards, and failing that, to make a judgement regarding the extent of the provocation and whether or not it was reasonable to expect the boards to be played. If not, then probably 50-50 all round, plus an immediate committee hearing to decide what, if any, further penalties would be appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Nov 8 10:04:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:04:10 +1100 (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 KAA25564 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:04:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from pc0s02a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.98.193] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11kbLT-0000tb-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 15:03:36 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:03:22 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2974$4a539500$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: Sunday, November 07, 1999 4:10 PM Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure > I have never shown the least scorn at the use of CCs. I believe CCs >are a good adjunct to the process of informing one's opponents and have >never said otherwise. A few quotes of what you have said about CCs (1)"The idea of alerting is to help the opponents, not to set up a framework so that they lose later rulings. Why should opponents have to refer to or remember CCs? This is not helpful." (2). " In the clubs that I play in people arecomfortable with alerts - much more comfortable than reading CCs. That does not suggest we have got alerting wrong." (3)" It is not particularly helpful to have people continually scanning CCs for information. Apart from the plethora of bad CCs, the game would run most freely when people feel least need to look at a CC without other compensating disruptions." (4)"It should be an alternative to the CC. It should not depend on players remembering or having to refer to their opponents' CC." (5)"Why should opponents have to refer to or remember CCs? This is not helpful." It does sound to me as though you think that CCs are as much an evil as some consider alerts to be. Is my CC not intended to inform my opps of anything they might need to know about my system, or is it's only use to be evidence that an agreement did in fact exist when the TD gets involved. Perhaps that is what the players think, and that is why it normally lives in the back pocket until the TD arrives! >>The completion of CCs is a subject for a different thread. Until recently >>EBU regs insisted on CCs being of a particularly designed format dependant >>on the event. > As they do now, of course. Not exactly The OB1993 said, You must use EBU20 or EBU20a or WBF. >>Shall we call for a "standard" format once again? >You mean like the one in the current regulations? OB1998 says word processed versions are acceptable as long as they contain the same information, in the same order. Edited CC downloads are OK, but "word processed" means different things to different people, and the same order of information does not necessarily mean "with little boxes" >>I suggest that the alerting of calls because they are not natural is >>counterproductive when nobody expects the call to be natural anyway. The >>alerting of calls because the opps might not expect etc., is >>counterproductive as it only says look at the CC or ask. > > Of course, this is wrong. The advantage of the alert system is that >people know whether to bother to do anything else about it. That is why >club players like it: they don't need to start thumbing through a CC for >an unalerted call. EBU20 is a two sided sheet. You don't have to thumb through it. >>When we get to the alerting of doubles, a realm of fantasy for most. Players >>in general alert doubles at random. To expect players to become expert in >>the language which the OB uses to describe doubles, is to expect the Red Sox >>to win whatever it is they play. > > Very funny, Anne. If a double is normally for takeout in British >normal methods then you do not alert it if it is for takeout, and >similarly for penalties. In the sequence 1C-1H-dbl, the double is normally for take-out, with all except the newest of beginners, and even some of them are being taught this way. Yet it is alertable if it is for take-out. >if it is not as standard practice then you alert. >Why is this difficult? Because people pretend it is! Because you do not find it difficult, you should not assume that when someoone tells you that they find it so, that they are not telling you the truth. >>A well completed CC _is_ an alert. It meets the requirements of an alert as >>defined. > > No, it does not. An alert tells you whether you need to do anything >about this one specific call. A CC does not do that: you have to search >through it to find the call. Alerting is so much simpler. And so much more use as UI, in many situations which are difficult to police. I know we rely on the ethical actions of players not to take advantage of the fact that they now know how partner is taking their bid. However we do not trust them so much that we think that at high level thay do not need screens, and at a lower level it is difficult to convince a player that they have to un-know something and deliberately now make a choice of bid that they now know will be misconstrued. > No, it is not alerting that makes the game run less smoothly. Take >alerts away, and we are back to the stop-go of an earlier generation, >where you had to adopt much slower and less satisfactory methods to find >out if the opponents were playing strange things - or not bother and >suffer the consequences. I am sure that we would all like to see Bridge being enjoyed at every level, without the loss of full disclosure for the opps, and without the disadvantage of legalised transfer of UI. I believe that if CC regulations were observed, there would be no need for alerts before opener's rebid, nor after game level has been reached. All information needed to understand the unalerted bids is well documented, and easily read. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 10:38:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:38:36 +1100 (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 KAA25655 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:38:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.99] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11kbt0-0004Ro-00; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:38:14 +0000 Message-ID: <000401bf2979$21fd6720$635108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:35:45 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: 07 November 1999 06:21 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >>+=+ However high-minded the intent, the >>action is still illicit and improper. 'Much >>better' to comply with the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >This is at least the second time this type of charge has been made. David >suggested that it is "illegal, not to mention unethical and immoral". Are >you asserting that this offense, if such it is, is not merely illegal (as >per the WBF LC), but unethical beyond the normal implication of legal >impropriety, or is this merely rhetorical overkill? > >Mike Dennis > +=+ When done intentionally and knowingly (as, for example, by a member of the former International Laws Commission of the World Bridge Federation) the offender should have noted that the 1975 Laws said: "to infringe the laws intentionally is a serious breach of propriety". The relevant law today is 72B2 and it is still today a serious impropriety to do this in knowing defiance of the 1997 Laws. ~Grattan~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 11:05:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:05:43 +1100 (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 LAA25719 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:05:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehtr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.187]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA14299 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 19:05:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991107190243.013227d8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 19:02:43 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <000401bf2979$21fd6720$635108c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:35 PM 11/7/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >>>+=+ However high-minded the intent, the >>>action is still illicit and improper. 'Much >>>better' to comply with the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >>This is at least the second time this type of charge has been made. David >>suggested that it is "illegal, not to mention unethical and immoral". Are >>you asserting that this offense, if such it is, is not merely illegal (as >>per the WBF LC), but unethical beyond the normal implication of legal >>impropriety, or is this merely rhetorical overkill? >> >>Mike Dennis >> >+=+ When done intentionally and >knowingly (as, for example, by a >member of the former International >Laws Commission of the World >Bridge Federation) the offender >should have noted that the 1975 >Laws said: "to infringe the laws >intentionally is a serious breach >of propriety". The relevant law >today is 72B2 and it is still today >a serious impropriety to do this >in knowing defiance of the 1997 >Laws. ~Grattan~ +=+ > I take it from your response that an individual who commits this "offense" while believing, as some serious analysts do, that it is perfectly legal, is still in violation of L73B1 but is innocent of the more serious impropriety of a deliberate breach of the Laws, as per L72B2. Thus yours and David's use of language like "improper" and "immoral and unethical" really only adds emphasis to your contention that the behavior is illegal per se. (Not that you should feel obliged to speak for David, of course). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 11:09:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:09:56 +1100 (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 LAA25740 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:09:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.140] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11kcNL-0005Vb-00; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 00:09:36 +0000 Message-ID: <001701bf297d$8399aa80$635108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:56:09 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: mail@bridgeworld.com Date: 07 November 1999 17:35 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >In an attempt to clear up some of the confusion regarding the apparent >discrepancy between the position staked out by Kaplan in the 1981 BW >editorial and the understanding of his views conveyed by Grattan, I have >been in touch with Jeff Rubens. FWIW, he has confirmed that to the best of >his knowledge (which is not inconsiderable), Kaplan never retreated from >his position on this question. He also confirmed the man's tendency to >couch his opinions in language which would be acceptable to his immediate >listeners, especially where matters of bridge law politics were concerned. >Finally, he reaffirmed the editorial position of The Bridge World that >motivation and purpose are irrelevant to the determination of the legality >of these types of questions. > >Again, I would like to make clear that neither the editorial stance of one >of the premier bridge journals nor the evident opinion of even such a giant >as Edgar Kaplan should be regarded in any way as dispositive, beyond >conferring a certain legitimacy upon the minority viewpoint. For me, the >strength of this position rests on its clear and direct derivation from the >language of the text, its convergence with an important underlying bridge >value, and on the practical limitations of an interpretation with no >objective standard for enforcement. > +=+ Ahime! dear Mike, I am sure you act with the best of intentions. And Mr. Rubens' comments are interesting but of little consequence. What a man may have said as a journalist and apologist for his own impropriety bears no weight alongside his contrary agreement as Chairman of the WBFLC. And both of his opinions are now insignificant in the light of the recent reaffirmation of the law (see above). As for your own thoughts, Mike, you have simply not grasped the full breadth of the meaning of 'through'. But I do not believe you can think the quoted minute confusing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 11:28:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:28:41 +1100 (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 LAA25789 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:28:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.200] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11kcfa-000638-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 00:28:27 +0000 Message-ID: <00b001bf2980$25946c60$c85208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 00:17:20 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: 07 November 1999 17:05 Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure >On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:30:45 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: > > >We basically alert calls that either >(a) are artificial, or >(b) can be expected to come as a surprise for opponents. > >I sometimes get the idea that two different alert types for these >two differents categories of calls might be desirable. > +=+ Don't you feel that maybe (b) alone says it all, and would suffice? [If no-one found it confusing, of course! :-)) ]. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 12:03:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:03:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f24.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA25888 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:03:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 98928 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 1999 01:02:50 -0000 Message-ID: <19991108010250.98927.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.129.244 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 07 Nov 1999 17:02:47 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.129.244] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 01:02:47 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Michael Farebrother wrote: > >>From: Herman De Wael > > >>We should draft a list of general principles concerning > >>alert procedures. > >>Not a general alert procedure, certainly not, because > >>standards are far too different in different countries. > >>But general principles. > > >This would be an interesting exercise. Yesterday I posted my >principles >(if it can't be explained without recourse to actual >writing (as opposed >to the "15 words" and "to", "through", +- et > >al), then it's alertable. Otherwise it's on the CC.) > > The idea of alerting is to help the opponents, not to set up a >framework so that they lose later rulings. Why should opponents have >to >refer to or remember CCs? This is not helpful. > Remember, David, the ACBL convention card is very different from most SO's CC's, including the EBU one (thanks for making the OB avaliable on the web, BTW - gives me some basis for comparison). There are a lot of places on the CC where common options are given checkboxes, and others where the various options are given radioboxes. *If* we can get this down to a reasonable number, then a quick drop of the head to the appropriate place in the CC is all that it would take to determine if 2D was a transfer (checked), natural (not checked), or strange (alerted). Also, the CC is one-sided (whether or not that's a good thing is another rant^Wtopic, but for this situation is positive). So all tournament players will have to be able to recognize a set of situations, whether or not they play them (note that they need not know how it works - they can always ask - they just need to know the situation). I think it reasonable that a tournament player should recognize: that 1m could be 2,3,4,5 cards and natural; that 1M could be 4 or 5 cards; that 1NT has a range that should be checked; that 2C is often strong and artificial, but is sometimes natural (and if so has a range) that 2x has a range that should be checked; when negative doubles apply (sim. responsive, maybe support, but no more) that a jump overcall can come in one of three types; that there are many defences to 1NT, most of them describable with the 15 words and "+", "points" and similar situations. Note that I *do not expect people to actually be able to read*, never mind read the scrawls that are often used on ACBL CC's. I also expect that accomodations will have to be made for people with eye difficulties. Why is this not helpful? We already require tournament players to know many more esoteric things, like when a double is alertable (in the ACBL, it's quite clear. It's also esoteric). > There are a lot of complaints on RGB, RGBO, and here about >American >alerting. Despite one recent one, we get very few >complaints about >English/Welsh alerting, or alerts elsewhere in the >world. In fact, I >think the second most common source of complaints >is people who do not >play in England or Wales complaining about >English/Welsh alerting. > Fine - you think you have come up with the best (or at least a more acceptable) solution. You will note that I do not disagree with the EBU regs (except that 2C natural, not Stayman should not be alerted. Yes, it's "unusual to the point that people should be woken up to the fact". Not alerting it should be more of a wakeup call than alerting it (says the weak NTer in the ACBL, whose non-alert of 1NT-2H does (mostly) wake up the opps). Note also that I am attempting to create a similar, simple rule for ACBL alerts. I am taking advantage of the "fill-in-the-box" style of the ACBL CC to create a quieter game than would be available without it. What's wrong with that? I see no relevance to this discussion of the fact that ACBL's current alert procedure is PhD material (MB material with Coles'^WMarvin's notes). > Players from the ACBL who complain about alerting rarely come up >with a >solution similar to English/Welsh alerting: I just did - so did Eric Landau. Rephrasing it: 1) Natural bids are not alertable. 2) In certain situations (about 20 or so), there is a common (or there are a few common) meaning(s) for a call. None of these are alertable - because they are checkable in 1/2 a second by seeing if a box is filled in. 3) Everything else is alertable. >perhaps because they do not realise that people like it. In the >clubs >that I play in people are comfortable with alerts - much more >comfortable >than reading CCs. That does not suggest we have got >alerting wrong. > I have never suggested you have got alerting wrong. Herman asked for suggestions on the Alert procedure - I gave him (and blml) mine. It happens to require 2 CCs on the table, which strangely enough the EBU's does as well (it is required that, before the round starts, you make yourself aware of the general system and the 1NT range). > It is not particularly helpful to have people continually scanning >CCs >for information. Ok, I expect that after a first look to see NT range and responses, minimum length of 1x bids, general strength of 2x bids, there will be one thing that has to be looked up every hand. Doesn't seem to be too bad, given what I do now. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what I do now. > Apart from the plethora of bad CCs, the game would run most freely >when people feel least need to look at a CC without other >compensating >disruptions. > Like an alert, for example? And the plethora of bad CC's won't be an issue, because I'm only talking about checkboxes and numbers and suits. I actually agree about the plethora of bad CC's. [snip section about more/fewer conventions. I'm a scientist, and a better bidder than player (and better theoretician than both, IMHO). It should make it quite obvious where I stand on that issue] > Alerting needs a basis. Most countries seem to have a standard >system >for comparison. Belgium has two, and you are required to know >which your >opponents are playing, since their alerting depends on it. >Americans claim not to know what Standard American means, but I do >not >believe them. England has a very wide range of natural systems, >most of >them called Acol. > I think a rephrase of the penultimate sentence is in order. America has a very wide range of natural systems, most of them called Standard American (although Standard American, version 2(over 1) is getting to be more common). --------------------------------------------------------------------- >Michael Farebrother wrote: >> >> >From: Herman De Wael >> >> > >> >Asking bids, in common situations, should not be alerted >> >solely based on the answering scheme. Answers to them >> >should be alerted if they differ from the standard meaning. >> > >>I agree with the first sentence. But I draw the exact opposite conclusion >>from it... >> >>I don't think that Asking bids should be alerted based on the >>answering scheme. But they should be alerted. >> >That depends on the regulating committee. My point is that >they should be alerted or not, depending on what you think >is most standard in your country, but that the alerting or >not should not depend on the answering scheme. Ok, I can agree with that, I guess. But (to take your argument about alerted natural bids further) what if the "standard" meaning is X? If I play 2NT-3C as natural, I have to alert, because "standard" is an asking bid. If I play 2NT-3C as transfer to diamonds, it's just as asking as if I play Stayman, but there'll be hell to play when dummy comes down... >>I have trouble with the second sentence, because it contains the >>word >>"standard", which means we have to define "standard". >> >But that is what an alert regulation is all about. I was going to disagree with that, but I read later that you deal with "alert if not natural" by claiming that we are "defining standard as natural". That wasn't what I thought (though I will admit to having a bit of a hair-trigger on that one). But I do believe that it should be possible to have multiple non-alerted meanings. Which might mean that many things are defined "standard" here. >Indeed, in England you alert Stayman ! See above. I have no problem with alerting Stayman. I do have a problem alerting Stayman, *and* 2C natural - that alert passes no information whatsoever, rather than even the information "of course". >>However, if the asking bid were alerted, then I can see "no alerts >> >>unless the response is unusual *for the system played*. I.e. after >> >>2NT-3C!, 3D would not be alerted if it were denying a 4-card major >> >>(if 3C were standard Stayman), showing a 4-card major (if 3C were >> >>puppet Stayman), sinply showing a 4-card diamond suit (if 3C were >> >>Baron), and so on. >No, in my opinion the alert procedure could simply define a >"standard" answering scheme, and only those answers that are >different should be alerted. We differ in that, then. I believe that there can, and should, be situations where there are more than one "standard" meaning. The ACBL alert regs are IMO over-complicated, and I think a lot of it comes from trying to get one "standard" meaning (vis the difference in alertability between 1H-(x)-3H and 1H-(1S)-3H). >Well, if the regulation stipulates that 3Cl (asking) is >non-alertable, then surely 3Cl natural must be alerted. >Many people find it strange that one should alert some >natural bids, but isn't that the consequence of the fact >that some bids have lost their "natural" meaning altogether. I can deal with that. I think that it is perfectly reasonable to decide "standard" == "natural", from which comes my suggestion. >For instance, in Belgium, we still alert direct cue-bids >(one of the things I would like to throw out). 1He-(2He) is >always alerted, because absolutely no-one plays that >natural. If we were to change the regulation, it would mean >that my partner and I would have to start alerting 1Cl-(2Cl) >: clubs ! (2Di shows majors, 3Cl Di+Sp) >>A "principle" in return - non-conventional bids should not require >> >>alerts. >Totally unworkable - if we are dropping alerts from some >conventions, the consequence is that natural bids get >alerts. So what's unworkable about it? Why should it be unworkable that we must drop alerts from conventions? Yes, I'm advocating two different things in this same thread, this same post, even. I want it to be as easy as possible for me to get the information I need to know about my opponents' auction. And frankly, in this part of the world, getting the information I want from questions without trying several times (many people believe "controls" is full disclosure after 2C(SAF)-2H!, for example) and without getting the smartass attitude in tone of response (especially when I ask for the range of the 1NT opening after 1H-1S; 1NT. Of course it's important - you didn't bid it, you won't have it, will you?), never mind the fact that I *know* (ok, no proof, but I'd lay serious odds if there was a way to get an honest response) that there are some pairs who don't have a CC so that you have to ask questions so that they can make sure they're on the same page - I want to minimize the times I need to ask questions. I may be unique, I don't know. And apologies to the list for forcing you to try to parse that last paragraph. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 12:32:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:32:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f90.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA25926 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:31:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 21987 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 1999 01:31:15 -0000 Message-ID: <19991108013115.21986.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.129.244 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 07 Nov 1999 17:31:14 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.183.129.244] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 01:31:14 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >"It is held illegal to ask a question in order that >partner may be aware of the information in the >reply." - W.B.F. Laws Committee (1999). >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael S. Dennis >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 07 November 1999 06:21 >Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > > > >>+=+ However high-minded the intent, the > >>action is still illicit and improper. 'Much > >>better' to comply with the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> > >This is at least the second time this type of charge has been made. > > >David suggested that it is "illegal, not to mention unethical and > >immoral". Are you asserting that this offense, if such it is, is > >not merely illegal (as per the WBF LC), but unethical beyond the >normal >implication of legal impropriety, or is this merely > >rhetorical overkill? > > > >Mike Dennis > > >+=+ When done intentionally and >knowingly (as, for example, by a >member of the former International >Laws Commission of the World >Bridge Federation) the offender >should have noted that the 1975 >Laws said: "to infringe the laws >intentionally is a serious breach >of propriety". The relevant law >today is 72B2 and it is still today >a serious impropriety to do this >in knowing defiance of the 1997 >Laws. ~Grattan~ +=+ > I like DWS's response to "unethical", which I have seen both here and on rgb (apologies to DWS if I misinterpret it): An act is illegal if it violates the Laws. It is unethical if the offender both knew better, and did it with intent. In other words, it's very difficult for a novice to be unethical - though possible. It requires evidence of lack of intent or attempt to follow the laws for one of us especially, or a TD in general, or an expert for any illegality to not be unethical. Luckily, most of the time, lack of intent is easy to prove (at least with my last few director calls, anyway). I do believe it is possible (difficult, but possible) to be fully in accord with the Laws and unethical. BL'ing, Alert Procedure L'ing, "sharp practice" against novices or (relatively) poor players. Again, the offender knew better, and did what e did with intent. So, in this case, if the information is as presented, I would beleive that it would be unethical for Kaplan to ask the "Kaplan question" - but merely illegal for someone who's only experience is reading RGB or some random BW editorials :-). Which, I hope, is what the others are saying. I also think that it is not unethical to be suggesting or arguing Kaplan's position, either because it is from authority, or because the WBFLC position is being debated or isn't known or clear. I would think it unethical if, knowing what we all now know, someone did it at the table anyway. Am I slicing the hair fine enough? Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 12:54:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:54:21 +1100 (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 MAA25964 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:54:14 +1100 (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 11ke0N-000NuF-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 01:53:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:13:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <199911062023.PAA26206@cfa183.harvard.edu> <035401bf294c$69d84e20$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <035401bf294c$69d84e20$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Something no one has mentioned: Shouldn't players be encouraged to skip >Alerts when it is certain their side will be playing the contract, and the >information is surely not going to be needed by the opposition until it is >time for the opening lead? Unnecessary Alerts during the auction not only >generate needless UI, but slow things down. Someone mentioned how the >Alert of Puppet Stayman could be useful UI to a responder who has >forgotten that agreement. No. You must not have optional alerts. The rules are complicated enough already and this would introduce new rules which people would get wrong. It would increase the number of rulings required enormously, help cheats by providing a new easy way, and go wrong often when people misjudge their opponents' desires. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 14:25:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:25:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26152 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:25:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-114-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.114]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA18802; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 22:25:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991107221546.0083d790@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 22:15:46 -0500 To: Ed Reppert , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: References: <+t9U$IA19BJ4EwkR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com> <19991105193656.87997.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:08 AM 11/7/99 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > Imagine my surprise to discover that in this >country one is lucky if _either_ opponent has a CC, and even luckier if >she'll make it available unless one asks. And then one finds it says "SA" >at the top, and the rest is blank. Maybe my personal bias is due to that >sequence of experience, but I would _much_ rather see the CC rules enforced >than to have the ACBL decide CCs are a waste of time. Agreed with this. And the problem isn't just that cards aren't filled out, but that they are incompletely filled out, and there are agreements which are not on the card. I just got back from a sectional Swiss in which five consecutive opponents had their carding agreements blank. One pair was playing Lavinthal discards, and another played jack denies, ten guarantees an honor. I found these out only because I always check the convention card for items of interest. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 14:25:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:25:49 +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 OAA26158 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:25:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-114-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.114]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA18797; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 22:25:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991107215946.00841690@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 21:59:46 -0500 To: "Michael Farebrother" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: <19991107191945.33237.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:19 PM 11/7/99 GMT, Michael Farebrother wrote: >>From: "Marvin L. French" >> > Any method that can be indicated by checking a box (or circling an >> >option) on the convention card should not be alertable. >I have agreed with this, and with the caveat that some boxes on the >current ACBL convention card should be removed (I don't think it >should be required for everyone to be able to recognize Maximal doubles, for >example, to play tournament bridge). Another problem is that the box may not be informative enough. If you play "4-suit transfers", is 2NT or 3C the transfer to diamonds? If you play "responsive doubles through 3S", which of these doubles are responsive? (This is one which is apparently a regional difference.) (1H)-X-(3H)-X (1H)-1S-(3H)-X (2H)-X-(3H)-X (2H)-2S-(3H)-X From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 14:28:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:28:51 +1100 (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 OAA26185 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:28:40 +1100 (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 11kfTk-00090d-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 03:28:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 03:05:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: careless v irrational In-Reply-To: <000401bf2897$eb235fc0$7f5208c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000401bf2897$eb235fc0$7f5208c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott writes > >> >>From: Jesper Dybdal >>>I find it reasonable to use the guideline that suits are taken >>>from the top down - this corresponds to saying that any claim >>>implicitly includes "taking my suits from the top down" unless >>>something different is explicitly said. >> >+=+ I have actually suggested, for the WBFLC >agenda, this as a footnote to law 70. I think it >would save a lot of AC time if it were in the >book. ~ G ~ +=+ > I agree, it would make a lot of sense and save a lot of time. Claimers would now only have to specify if their intent was not to play from the top. (Leaving aside questions of blockages etc) 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 Nov 8 14:28:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:28:51 +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 OAA26183 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:28:38 +1100 (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 11kfTl-0009Ov-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 03:28:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 02:49:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>I went round in circles tonight (UK alert regs) >> >>1S x 2D ? (btw it's clear P P 1S x 2D [NF] is not alertable in UK) >> >> alertable? alertable if forcing? alertable if non-forcing? >> >> what about 1C x 1S ? any difference >> >>offers? let us know which jurisdiction as it may well be different in >>ACBL, or Oz or wherever >> >>I'm not sure I know the answer btw - the FOB is not entirely clear here >>to my mind. > >5.4.4 > You should not alert: > > (d) a natural response to an opening bid when a > takeout double has intervened whether forcing > or non-forcing > > Please explain the lack of clarity. 5.4.2 Because you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non- forcing in a way your opponents are unlikely to expect, you must alert: a) a non-forcing new suit response to an opening bid, unless: i) responder has previously passed ii) the opening bid was doubled etc which seems entirely at odds with 5.4.4 because it suggests I should alert some of the time (including when it is forcing) 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 Nov 8 14:28:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:28:51 +1100 (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 OAA26184 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:28:40 +1100 (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 11kfTq-000Pai-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 03:28:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 03:14:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: careles v irrational In-Reply-To: <02d101bf2823$ca6ef920$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <02d101bf2823$ca6ef920$622ed2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes > >From: John (MadDog) Probst > > Marvin L. French writes" > >> >Followers of the UD (Unlimited Disclosure) philosophy will no doubt say >> >that dummy should immediately explain any such signals to defenders who >> >may not know their meaning, along with the possibility that they could >be >> >psychic. >> >> but only after the hand is over :)))) Laws 42 and 43 generally >> >Interesting. L42 does not give him this right, but L43A1(c) says he cannot >communicate anything about the play *to declarer*, implying that it is >okay to communicate something about the play to the defenders. I thought about this one and recalled Grattans' (paraphrased by me) words of the like: "Even if something is *not* banned, it may not necessarily be allowed." > >Question: Can dummy correct MI after the opening lead is made, or during >the play, having realized the MI only at that time, or does s/he have to >wait until the play is over? > 75D1 says a player must immediately call the Director ..... 42A1 says dummy should not initiate a call .... It may rest on whether dummy is a *player* (not defined at the front) I think 75D1 contains the stronger wording. My vote is YES, immediately. chs john >Marv (Marvin L. French) > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 15:07:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:07:37 +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 PAA26285 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:07:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegmt.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.221]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01143 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:07:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991107230430.0132336c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 23:04:30 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <0.f8c3fda.25577768@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:46 PM 11/7/99 EST, Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 11/7/99 12:11:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, >msd@mindspring.com writes: > >> conferring a certain legitimacy upon the minority viewpoint. > Hey, I like being the minoriy viewpoint. Probabily mkes me right. Lunaucy i >not a protected roight of the majority.. By a far! Kojak Unless you have switched sides (and in that case, welcome), yours is in fact the majority viewpoint. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 16:16:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:16:28 +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 QAA26399 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:16:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegmt.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.221]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA30162 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:35:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991107233318.013236b0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 23:33:18 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <001701bf297d$8399aa80$635108c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:56 PM 11/7/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Ahime! dear Mike, > I am sure you act with the best of intentions. >And Mr. Rubens' comments are interesting but of >little consequence. What a man may have said >as a journalist and apologist for his own >impropriety bears no weight alongside his >contrary agreement as Chairman of the WBFLC. >And both of his opinions are now insignificant >in the light of the recent reaffirmation of the >law (see above). > As for your own thoughts, Mike, you have >simply not grasped the full breadth of the >meaning of 'through'. I am familiar with the word. To the best of my knowledge, no ordinary usage of it imparts any connotation of intentionality. Either it is legal to ask a question, the answer to which may be informative to partner, or it is not. Motivation is simply not germane, at least not if we are to limit the discussion to the written text. That leaves three possibilities: 1. We agree that the written text is mute on motivation, and that such questions are not prohibited. 2. We agree that the written text is mute on motivation, but decide that such questions constitute the type of communication prohibited by L73B1. A defensible interpretation, but only if you're willing to completely nullify the right to ask questions granted by L20F. 3. We pretend, Emperor's New Clothes style, that the written text does refer to motivation, if only through the careful choice of a preposition. >But I do not believe you can think the quoted minute confusing. I agree that this language is unambiguous on the matter, certainly. As I have written in a previous post, I am unsure of the legally binding character of WBF LC commentary. It seems to me passing strange that the Laws might be subject to amendment by such a vehicle. Although it is conceivable that the LC might feel compelled to offer such supplementary guidance when confusion over proper practice threatens the smooth and consistent administration of the Laws, it is harder to understand the need for such "clarification" of an issue which has no adjudicatory significance. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 18:56:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:56:52 +1100 (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 SAA26594 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:56:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.53] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11kjfC-000D90-00; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:56:30 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01bf29be$bda81ea0$355108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael Farebrother" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:54:16 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: 08 November 1999 01:57 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >>From: "Grattan Endicott" > >>"It is held illegal to ask a question in order that >>partner may be aware of the information in the >>reply." - W.B.F. Laws Committee (1999). >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>> >In other words, it's very difficult for a novice to be unethical - though >possible. It requires evidence of lack of intent or attempt to follow the >laws for one of us especially, or a TD in general, or an expert for any >illegality to not be unethical. Luckily, most of the time, lack of intent >is easy to prove (at least with my last few director calls, anyway). > >I do believe it is possible (difficult, but possible) to be fully in accord >with the Laws and unethical. BL'ing, Alert Procedure L'ing, "sharp >practice" against novices or (relatively) poor players. Again, the offender >knew better, and did what e did with intent. > >So, in this case, if the information is as presented, I would beleive that >it would be unethical for Kaplan to ask the "Kaplan question" - but merely >illegal for someone who's only experience is reading RGB or some random BW >editorials :-). Which, I hope, is what the others are saying. I also think >that it is not unethical to be suggesting or arguing Kaplan's position, >either because it is from authority, or because the WBFLC position is being >debated or isn't known or clear. I would think it unethical if, knowing >what we all now know, someone did it at the table anyway. > +=+ This sets it out fairly enough. The last words express exactly my purpose in several times repeating the 1999 WBFLC ruling, the WBFLC being constitutionally authorized and required to interpret the laws.~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 20:23:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:23:48 +1100 (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 UAA26695 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:23:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.115] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11kl1R-000G5F-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:23:33 +0000 Message-ID: <004701bf29ca$e6994440$735208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:24:31 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: 08 November 1999 06:28 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > Although it is >conceivable that the LC might feel compelled >to offer such supplementary guidance when >confusion over proper practice threatens the >smooth and consistent administration of the >Laws, it is harder to understand the need for >such "clarification" of an issue which has no >adjudicatory significance. > +=+ The application of the laws is in the hands of Directors and Appeals Committees. The duty imposed on the WBFLC is to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the meaning of the laws they are to apply. The WBFLC would wish also to ensure that, unchallenged, interpretations with which it disagrees do not provide relief for the conscience of the player who is minded to act improperly because he believes it undetectable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 20:42:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:42:30 +1100 (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 UAA26716 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:42:21 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA10913 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:41:39 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:41 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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: <003801bf28be$59a2c500$6c5108c3@swhki5i6> Grattan wrote: > >>I do not think this will convince you but... I do not believe that > >>keeping quiet and relying on a later adjustment is the best way to > help a > >>developing partner improve her skills. Much better to get the MI > sorted > >>immediately and let her try applying judgment on the proper facts. > > > +=+ However high-minded the intent, the > action is still illicit and improper. 'Much > better' to comply with the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The whole point of this debate is that I believe such actions are fully complicit with the laws (1997 Edition) as written. When the lawbook states unambiguously that such behaviour is improper/illegal or whatever then I will of course follow it. The above is merely an argument for why I feel the law should not be changed. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 20:48:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:48:37 +1100 (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 UAA26738 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:48:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:48:03 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA21556 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:57:05 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML Group'" Subject: RE: Incorrect Quitted Trick Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:40:57 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne wrote: >Brd 13 107 >All Vul 98653 >Dealer N A643 > A4 >J853 AK64 >AJ7 K42 >J7 10 >J1092 K8753 > Q92 > Q10 > KQ9852 > Q6 > >W N E S >- P 1C 1D >2C 2H 3C P >P 3D P P >3S P P P > >Lead H3 > >This went to the Q and West's Ace >Three rounds of trumps followed >South in with the SQ led a Diamond to partner's Ace and a diamond was >returned and ruffed on dummy > >Events now took an unusual course: > >Declarer played the heart four to his Jack but in quitting this trick >dummy turned down the heart King and apparently noone noticed this >irregularity. > >Declarer ran a club to South's Queen and the King of diamonds was led to >and held the next trick with declarer pitching a club from hand and a >"heart" (his precise wording) from table. > >Declarer ruffed the next diamond and continued clubs. North winning and >begins cashing his remaining (now good) hearts. > >Declarer now comments "What happened to my King of Hearts?" > >Result 3S W -3 > >If the King of Hearts had not been quitted in error (agreed fact) and >declarer had not pitched it on the third round of diamonds (likely) then >the result would have been 3S W -1 > >Is there any basis for adjusting the score? > >Would you make a different ruling(s) if Declarer had said "pitch the >four of hearts" or "low heart" rather than just "heart"? This case is exactly described in L45D - dummy played a card which declarer did not name. This can be corrected until both sides played to the next trick. Since declarer woke up much later than that, nothing can be done anymore, and the result stands. The heart king in fact replaced the heart four after both sides played to the next trick. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 21:50:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:50:49 +1100 (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 VAA26843 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:50:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:50:22 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA21709; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:18:25 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Michael Albert'" , Subject: RE: The case of the curious claim Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:05:29 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: >Scene: Final round of the club pairs championships >Persona: NS the competition leaders and near-certain winners, EW supporting >cast. >Contract: An unusual 6D by south (the room will be in 3N) > >As the lights go up declarer has yet to lose a trick and the remaining >cards we can see are: > > 8/K/-/AK7 > >-/AQ/-/QT9 -/JT/-/345 > > -/92/-/J82 > >The hand has, not surprisingly, taken some time to play, and the next round >is well under way at other tables. The lead is in the south. > >At this point west faces his hand and claims two tricks "at the end". >"Plain as a pikestaff" all agree, and the score is entered. > >As the next board begins, erstwhile south (we're playing a Howell) realises >that after a club to dummy, the final spade squeezes west into unguarding >the clubs, or an endplay. > >Director is called. > >Now from a legal point of view there is no problem. A concession has been >made, and in attempting to cancel it the "careless but not irrational" >mantle falls upon the originally acquiescing side. Since the squeeze is not >positional it would not be irrational to play to squeeze east instead (no >cards were marked on the bidding or play), or simply to try and drop an >original doubleton club (less likely on previous play.) > >So why bring it up? > >The question arises whether west might have seen what was about to happen, >made a "quick and dirty" claim (albeit of quite a common type) and hoped >that time pressure would push it through. How is one meant to deal with this? > >(South could have saved us all this difficulty by playing for hA onside all >along -- dummy originally had other hearts with the king, but then I >wouldn't have a story to tell.) There has been a claim, not a concession. West claimed two tricks, and South agreed to that. South may withdraw his acquiescence before his side calls on the next board or the end of the round (L69A). As it is the next round, this correction period is over. Then he has until 30 minutes after publication of the score (79C) to protest, but then only about tricks he actually won or which cannot be lost by any normal (includes careless/inferior, but not irrational) play of the cards (69B). In short, if South objects immediately, West has to prove why he gets two tricks. If South objects later, South has to prove why only one trick should be lost. And then it is not irrational to me to cash both club honours before the last spade, giving West two tricks, since it took South much time to see the squeeze. If South objected earlier, he would have got that trick, but he is simply too late now. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 8 23:49:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:49:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [212.115.192.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27135 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:49:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from poimms-6350 (kpn-di158.zeelandnet.nl [212.115.197.32]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA17112 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:49:16 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <199911081249.NAA17112@mail.zeelandnet.nl> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: Subject: Re: The case of the angry absentee Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:47:19 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that you made the right decision with 60-40 on the board. Because S should have called you at the moment he felt offended and not trying to solve it on his own. He has no right to walk away from the table. But i find it curious that you let yourself being sent away by a player (N) when normal play is clearly impossible. I don't think that N in this case is the director since he's involved. The procedural penalty is an other matter. I think that you should have investigated the situation before giving one. Knowing the facts i would probably give borh pairs a warning for unproper conduct (you haven't mentioned earlier situations). As to N i would ask the club captain if he/she is cabaqble of being a director since he doesn't follow rules (calling a TD) which he must apply on others. By the way i had a simular situation last thursday were a player walked away from the table after playing 6 cards after he felt insulted (the TD at the table hadn't heared the remark by the way). Your suggetion that you probibly wouldn't be able to solve the dispute is probably right. At the end of the evening a second problem arose. The player being accused of the remark was offended by the suggestion that she could have made such a remark and him walking away form the table. This story continues. Marcel Schoof ---------- > Van: Michael Albert > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: The case of the angry absentee > Datum: zondag 7 november 1999 22:13 > > Scene: Second to last round of the club pairs championships > Persona: Two contending pairs. N is playing director (owing to the > scheduled director being called in to work at the last moment.) > > EW have an alert-ridden auction to 4H by W. South on lead asks for an > explanation of some calls. W makes an explanation, which E points out is a > little incomplete. W now remarks that he wouldn't expect S to give a > complete explanation so why should he? S takes offense (not unreasonably > though the initial remark was intended as flippant.) Now things get a bit > serious ... but in a quiet sort of Kiwi way, for example the club recorder > sitting at the next table never realised that there was a problem. Anyhow, > the allegation is repeated, S demands an apology, seconded by E, one is > given, S claims it is insincere (possibly with some justifaction). S > decides he has been intolerably provoked and simply leaves the table. > Subsequently S returns and plays the remainder of the session (but not the > two boards scheduled against this EW). > > After S's departure the hapless director's assistant (yours truly) is > called to the table by E, and promptly sent away again by N (the playing > director) with words to the effect of "we'll sort it out at the end of the > session". At the end of the session I'm told by the director that boards > A+B will require an adjusted score as "we" refused to play them. I check > that "we" means NS and not everyone at the table. I do not know the facts > in the paragraph above, nor do I make any effort to determine at this time > what precipitated the refusal. I rule, routinely as far as I am concerned, > 60% to EW, 40% to NS, plus a 40% procedural penalty to NS, so effectively > 60-0. I also make a serious procedural error -- I'm so attuned to the > notion that the adjustment is automatic (and expected by all parties > concerned) that I don't specifically tell them the results of the adjustment. > > I also inform the club recorder and club captain that there has obviously > been some sort of "incident" which may well require a disciplinary > investigation/hearing, and make sure that they recognise that the situation > is quite serious. On my own, I find out, largely from EW the course of events. > > When S discovers the results of the adjustment he is most upset. He argues > that as the injured, non-offending party, he if anyone should be getting > the 60% board, and EW the 0. He demands a re-adjustment, and continues to > do so. > > This is the sort of issue on which I think official procedural guidance > would be useful. The logic which I used to decide my adjustment was that > given the unilateral action by S in causing the boards to become > unplayable, it was not up to me in deciding the score adjustment for those > particular boards to address any further issues (though I expected them to > be addressed in subsequent investigation.) Effectively, by walking out, I > maintain that S changed a single infraction of proprieties by W, into two > infractions, the second of which (his own) was what caused the boards to > become unplayable. > > Had S properly called me while the dispute was taking place, then I would > have been in a position to try and defuse the situation (probably > impossible) and convince the players to play the boards, and failing that, > to make a judgement regarding the extent of the provocation and whether or > not it was reasonable to expect the boards to be played. If not, then > probably 50-50 all round, plus an immediate committee hearing to decide > what, if any, further penalties would be appropriate. > --------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Tue Nov 9 01:59:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:59:50 +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 BAA27390 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:59:41 +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 JAA21153 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:59:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA27441 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:59:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:59:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911081459.JAA27441@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The case of the curious claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Albert > The question arises whether west might have seen what was about to happen, > made a "quick and dirty" claim (albeit of quite a common type) and hoped > that time pressure would push it through. Is a claim an "irregularity" for purposes of L72B1? I vote 'no' _provided_ the claim is made in proper form. If there's any breacy of proper form, e.g. claimer puts his cards away without showing them, then I'd vote 'yes'. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 02:06:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 02:06:58 +1100 (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 CAA27576 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 02:06:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-87.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.87]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23433; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:06:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006001bf29fb$1b9f0640$5784d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:08:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 6:46 PM Subject: Re: Disagreement about MI >At 12:56 PM 11/5/99 -0500, Craig wrote: >>What is certain is that had the correct 3 club bid been made if they had >>been playing Ogust, being told that declarer DOES NOT hold 2 of the top >>three honours in trump, defender will NOT lead the heart jack. Partner has >>to hold no worse than honour third. With two trump tricks a certainty, he >>will search for the fourth defensive trick. Leading a black suit doesn't >>look profitable. The diamond shift is marked. (But this really doesn't apply >>to the ruling.) > >Although we agree on the final ruling, I don't understand this paragraph. >They _weren't_ playing Ogust, so the notion that South's "correct" bid was >or might have been 3C is completely irrelevant. If indeed they had been >playing Ogust (or at any rate North's version of it), then there would have >been no infraction at all, just a misbid by South, which, contrary to >Herman's opinion, is not illegal or subject to any sanction at all. > >Mike Dennis Which is why I noted that this scenario really doesn't apply. Still, I wonder if the explanation of the alert was just a single word "Ogust" ? Over half the players I know play a 3h Ogust bid to mean poor suit good hand. This would ALSO deny the trump queen and ALSO suggest the diamond ace, making the attempted deception in trump even more palatable. And this Would be MI. Still enough phantoms; I fully agree with your analysis. I am just wondering why a "weak" player would even be able to devise a deceptive trump defence. For some reason he thought there was little risk of a trick disappearing, and no hope of trump winners without misdirection. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 02:16:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 02:16:45 +1100 (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 CAA27596 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 02:16:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA12995 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:15:56 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:15 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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: <001e01bf29be$bda81ea0$355108c3@swhki5i6> > > > >>From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > >>"It is held illegal to ask a question in order that > >>partner may be aware of the information in the > >>reply." - W.B.F. Laws Committee (1999). > >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> >>> > >In other words, it's very difficult for a novice to be unethical - > though > >possible. It requires evidence of lack of intent or attempt to follow > the > >laws for one of us especially, or a TD in general, or an expert for any > >illegality to not be unethical. Luckily, most of the time, lack of > intent > >is easy to prove (at least with my last few director calls, anyway). > > > >I do believe it is possible (difficult, but possible) to be fully in > accord > >with the Laws and unethical. BL'ing, Alert Procedure L'ing, "sharp > >practice" against novices or (relatively) poor players. Again, the > offender > >knew better, and did what e did with intent. > > > >So, in this case, if the information is as presented, I would beleive > that > >it would be unethical for Kaplan to ask the "Kaplan question" - but > merely > >illegal for someone who's only experience is reading RGB or some > random BW > >editorials :-). Which, I hope, is what the others are saying. I also > think > >that it is not unethical to be suggesting or arguing Kaplan's position, > >either because it is from authority, or because the WBFLC position is > being > >debated or isn't known or clear. I would think it unethical if, > knowing > >what we all now know, someone did it at the table anyway. > > > +=+ This sets it out fairly enough. The last > words express exactly my purpose in several > times repeating the 1999 WBFLC ruling, the > WBFLC being constitutionally authorized and > required to interpret the laws.~ Grattan ~ +=+ The 1999 WBFLC ruling is not 'the law' merely *an* interpretation where, in different circumstances, a different interpretation might have been given. It would be unethical for anyone believing these rulings to be part of the laws to ask such a question. It would be grossly unethical for *anyone* to attempt to conceal their motives in asking such a question. It would be perfectly ethical for me (given my reading of the laws) to ask such a question while openly acknowledging my motives (I can pretty much guarantee that the director will be ignorant of WBFLC99 and I would also consider it my ethical duty to inform him of its existence before he attempted a ruling). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 03:14:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:14:58 +1100 (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 DAA27729 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:14:34 +1100 (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 RAA14205 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:14:07 +0100 Message-ID: <3826F6D2.7C4D6F9A@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:14:10 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: The case of the curious claim References: <3.0.1.32.19991108091521.0095ec40@chance.otago.ac.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > The question arises whether west might have seen what was about to happen, > made a "quick and dirty" claim (albeit of quite a common type) and hoped > that time pressure would push it through. How is one meant to deal with this? Yes, West might have seen what was about to happen and might have done this on purpose. So what? People make flawed claims from time to time. As we don't want to send to prison the vast majority of claimers who are quite honest but just careless than we have to admit that sometimes a villainous player will take their chance and will get away with murder. However, you can keep records of similar cases and if it happens too frequently for this particular WE pair then some further steps might be taken. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Nov 9 03:43:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:43:15 +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 DAA27801 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:43:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:42:55 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf2a08$4e5d3720$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.19991107215946.00841690@mail.wcnet.org> Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:04:21 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: David J. Grabiner > If you play "4-suit transfers", is 2NT or 3C the transfer to diamonds? No longer a problem. The latest ACBL cc has a space after 2S, and a space after 2NT, where the meaning of each bid must be written if it is conventional. The version of the cc that had "4-suit transfers" is now obsolete and should not be used. Odd that the ACBL does not require use of the updated card after some specified date. They used to do that when a new cc came out. > > If you play "responsive doubles through 3S", which of these doubles are > responsive? (This is one which is apparently a regional difference.) I think I have the answers, although loose usage is common. > > (1H)-X-(3H)-X Responsive Double > (1H)-1S-(3H)-X If this is responsive, then it is an Extended Responsive Double (ERD), which deserves a better name and should be written in on the line provided under "Special Doubles." It is not a Responsive Double. > (2H)-X-(3H)-X Responsive Double, but only if the partnership has an agreement about it, according to the ACBL Encyclopedia.. If the Responsive Double box is checked on the cc, then this double is Alerted if responsive, not Alerted if penalty. Since all responsive doubles must be Alerted, I think this amount of disclosure is sufficient. > (2H)-2S-(3H)-X > ERD Bridge World Standard (BWS) uses "Responsive and extended responsive doubles after takeout doubles, at the two level after an overcall, after a preempt." Not all that clear to me, but I think this would be ERD in BWS. Since ERDs must be Alerted, and a double must be for penalty in the absence of an Alert, I don't see any problem here. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 04:02:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:21:27 +1100 (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 DAA27766 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:21:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na347243 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 02:20:19 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-185.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.185]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Home-Grown-MailRouter V2.5 7/1850264); 09 Nov 1999 02:20:19 Message-ID: <02f301bf2aa4$541db760$aee0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:19:45 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Wilner wrote: >Are the (Australian) alert regulations on the web >somewhere, or do you have a copy you can send to BLML? > The Australian Alert Regulations (1998), constructed by a committee headed by Roger Penny after years of discussion and debate similar to that currently on BLML, are at http://www.abf.com.au/about/alerts.html More than one third of the duplicate bridge games in Australia are played under NSWBA Alert Regulations, which are similar. A summary can be found at http://www.nswba.com.au/member/alert.html The full NSWBA Alert Regulations are at http://www.nswba.com.au/member/nswtregs.doc I'm simply posting this to BLML. I wasn't involved in creating these new Alert Regulations. From my experience I can say: (1) There were some experiments that failed before the current rules which seem to be generally well-received. (2) My personal favourite is the "no alerting doubles" with the declaring side "self alerting" their doubles at the end of the auction. Peter Gill Sydney NSW Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 04:11:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA27866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 04:11:50 +1100 (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 EAA27861 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 04:11:09 +1100 (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 11ksHX-000CZj-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:08:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:41:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <19991108010250.98927.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19991108010250.98927.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >Remember, David, the ACBL convention card is very different from most SO's >CC's, including the EBU one (thanks for making the OB avaliable on the web, >BTW - gives me some basis for comparison). There are a lot of places on the >CC where common options are given checkboxes, and others where the various >options are given radioboxes. *If* we can get this down to a reasonable >number, then a quick drop of the head to the appropriate place in the CC is >all that it would take to determine if 2D was a transfer (checked), natural >(not checked), or strange (alerted). Also, the CC is one-sided (whether or >not that's a good thing is another rant^Wtopic, but for this situation is >positive). > >So all tournament players will have to be able to recognize a set of >situations, whether or not they play them (note that they need not know how >it works - they can always ask - they just need to know the situation). I >think it reasonable that a tournament player should recognize: > >that 1m could be 2,3,4,5 cards and natural; >that 1M could be 4 or 5 cards; >that 1NT has a range that should be checked; >that 2C is often strong and artificial, but is sometimes natural > (and if so has a range) >that 2x has a range that should be checked; >when negative doubles apply (sim. responsive, maybe support, but no > more) >that a jump overcall can come in one of three types; >that there are many defences to 1NT, most of them describable with > the 15 words and "+", "points" > >and similar situations. If you keep this really simple, then maybe. But will it happen? Why do you say "tournament players"? One of my main worries about alerting is club players. Tonight I shall go and play in a very weak club. I shall have two perfectly filled in CCs [thanks to Lee Edwards]. I play some very strange methods. I believe they are better than standard methods, but the one thing I do not want to do is to gain because opponents do not realise I am playing them. So what do I do? Well, I shall make the CCs clearly available. Most pairs will take no notice and ignore them. I shall point out the basis of our system at the start of the round. In answer to any questions, I shall be as clear as I can, and I hope partner will be so. If I am declarer or dummy, I shall clarify any of partner's answers that were unclear. If I feel the opponents have been damaged in any way I shall tell them so at the end of the hand and invite them to take it further. None of this is worth very much. they would not ask questions without someone telling them to, and they will not read the CC. What else, can I do, tell them to ask? **Exactly !!** I shall alert very carefully and clearly, which tells them to ask - and that is the one thing that is likely to get them to realise that a 1NT overcall over 1S is not a strong balanced hand. >Note that I *do not expect people to actually be able to read*, never mind >read the scrawls that are often used on ACBL CC's. I also expect that >accomodations will have to be made for people with eye difficulties. > >Why is this not helpful? We already require tournament players to know many >more esoteric things, like when a double is alertable (in the ACBL, it's >quite clear. It's also esoteric). The methods you espouse may work quite well. But please remember club players: I think simple alerting is best for them. Remember how difficult it is to enforce CC regs: can you do it in clubs? >> There are a lot of complaints on RGB, RGBO, and here about >American >>alerting. Despite one recent one, we get very few >complaints about >>English/Welsh alerting, or alerts elsewhere in the >world. In fact, I >>think the second most common source of complaints >is people who do not >>play in England or Wales complaining about >English/Welsh alerting. >> >Fine - you think you have come up with the best (or at least a more >acceptable) solution. You will note that I do not disagree with the EBU >regs (except that 2C natural, not Stayman should not be alerted. Yes, it's >"unusual to the point that people should be woken up to the fact". Not >alerting it should be more of a wakeup call than alerting it (says the weak >NTer in the ACBL, whose non-alert of 1NT-2H does (mostly) wake up the opps). Your suggestion for 2C in response to 1NT sounds fine, but ..... Our alerting rules are three, with *no* exceptions. You are suggesting an exception. -- 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 Tue Nov 9 04:13:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA27880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 04:13:34 +1100 (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 EAA27875 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 04:13:22 +1100 (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 11ksK8-000Ovw-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:11:21 +0000 Message-ID: <9xAUo$ACztJ4Ewku@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:22:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <01bf2974$4a539500$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf2974$4a539500$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 >> I have never shown the least scorn at the use of CCs. I believe CCs >>are a good adjunct to the process of informing one's opponents and have >>never said otherwise. >A few quotes of what you have said about CCs > >(1)"The idea of alerting is to help the opponents, not to set up a >framework so that they lose later rulings. Why should opponents have to >refer to or remember CCs? This is not helpful." We have three different interlinked methods of informing opponents of our methods. I think CCs are a great idea. That does not mean that I have anything against alerting. Why should opponents have to look at CCs? The best use of alerting is to remind opponents to do something - ask questions or look at the card. To suggest opponents should replace alerting with continual pawing through a cC is wrong. Alerting is good. So are CCs, but not for alerting purposes, for which they are not suited. >(2). " In the clubs that I play in people arecomfortable with alerts - much >more comfortable than reading CCs. That does not suggest we have got >alerting wrong." So? It would be better if club players were comfortable with everything, but they are not. They are more comfortable with alerts than CCs. For some things, CCs are better, for some things alerts are better. Nothing in this comment of mine suggests otherwise. > (3)" It is not particularly helpful to have people continually scanning CCs >for information. Apart from the plethora of bad CCs, the game would run >most freely when people feel least need to look at a CC without other >compensating disruptions." Absolutely. I am not in favour of playing bridge while continually scanning opponents' CCs. That is a most unsuitable way to play bridge. CCs are an excellent idea, but they do not work to alert opponents that something needs asking about. >(4)"It should be an alternative to the CC. It should not depend on players >remembering or having to refer to their opponents' CC." Very good comment. >(5)"Why should opponents have to refer to or remember CCs? This is not >helpful." Ditto. >It does sound to me as though you think that CCs are as much an evil as >some consider alerts to be. Why? I never said so. CCs are a great adjunct, and very useful, and I never said otherwise. They are useless as a method of alerting, but they are not needed for that. > Is my CC not intended to inform my opps of >anything they might need to know about my system, or is it's only use to be >evidence that an agreement did in fact exist when the TD gets involved. >Perhaps that is what the players think, and that is why it normally lives in >the back pocket until the TD arrives! It does not normally live in the back pocket. This is a slur on a lot of bridge players, the majority of bridge players in England and Wales. If you check next time you play, you will find at Congresses and above, 90% of players put them on the table. In clubs you will find that 70% of players do not have a CC: of the remainder, 80% put them on the table. You have a little check the next few times you play. It is true that not a lot of opponents use them. The reason for this is that [a] some people are not comfortable using them [b] alerts have taken away much of their nonsense use [c] many people find questions an easier method. None of this alters the fact that they are a good adjunct and to suggest their only use is for rulings purposes is ludicrous: more importantly, since this seems to be what your post is about, I neither said it nor believe it. >>>The completion of CCs is a subject for a different thread. Until recently >>>EBU regs insisted on CCs being of a particularly designed format dependant >>>on the event. > > As they do now, of course. >Not exactly The OB1993 said, You must use EBU20 or EBU20a or WBF. Not exactly, no. It was felt that a word processed card in the same order with the same information was close enough. >>>Shall we call for a "standard" format once again? > >You mean like the one in the current regulations? >OB1998 says word processed versions are acceptable as long as they >contain the same information, in the same order. >Edited CC downloads are OK, but "word processed" means different things to >different people, and the same order of information does not necessarily >mean "with little boxes" True. But it needs to clear. The EBU L&EC's view [unanimously] is that the comparison between a Word Processed card in the same order [even without little boxes] and a hand-written card, often illegible, and often less well filled in, is that the WP card is easier for opponents. It is for the opponents that the decision was taken, not for the sake of rulings. >>>I suggest that the alerting of calls because they are not natural is >>>counterproductive when nobody expects the call to be natural anyway. The >>>alerting of calls because the opps might not expect etc., is >>>counterproductive as it only says look at the CC or ask. >> >> Of course, this is wrong. The advantage of the alert system is that >>people know whether to bother to do anything else about it. That is why >>club players like it: they don't need to start thumbing through a CC for >>an unalerted call. >EBU20 is a two sided sheet. You don't have to thumb through it. You search through it. Players do not find it that easy. Because EBU 20 has less space for information, and no summary, it is easier to get information from an EBU 20A than from an EBU 20 anyway. >>>When we get to the alerting of doubles, a realm of fantasy for most. >Players >>>in general alert doubles at random. To expect players to become expert in >>>the language which the OB uses to describe doubles, is to expect the Red >Sox >>>to win whatever it is they play. >> >> Very funny, Anne. If a double is normally for takeout in British >>normal methods then you do not alert it if it is for takeout, and >>similarly for penalties. > >In the sequence 1C-1H-dbl, the double is normally for take-out, with >all except the newest of beginners, and even some of them are being taught >this way. Yet it is alertable if it is for take-out. I wonder. In the club I play at most I would think about 80% play it for penalties. I do not think Sputnik doubles is a problem: it seems to be the one position people do not claim not to understand alerting - probably because of its frequency. Anyway, I think to change that would make the rules more complicated which is not a good idea. However, in a normal later round situation, the alerting of doubles is not usually too complex. > >if it is not as standard practice then you alert. > >Why is this difficult? Because people pretend it is! > >Because you do not find it difficult, you should not assume that when >someoone tells you that they find it so, that they are not telling you the >truth. I have been told this by many people over time, and I have made overall judgements based on their comments. I think people make this particular situation more difficult for themselves than they need to. >>>A well completed CC _is_ an alert. It meets the requirements of an alert >as >>>defined. >> >> No, it does not. An alert tells you whether you need to do anything >>about this one specific call. A CC does not do that: you have to search >>through it to find the call. Alerting is so much simpler. > >And so much more use as UI, in many situations which are difficult to >police. >I know we rely on the ethical actions of players not to take advantage of >the >fact that they now know how partner is taking their bid. However we do not >trust >them so much that we think that at high level thay do not need screens, and >at > a lower level it is difficult to convince a player that they have to >un-know >something and deliberately now make a choice of bid that they now know will >be misconstrued. That is a different argument. Of course, there are UI problems. however, having CCs replace alerts would do so much more damage to the game that it is an undesirable regression. >> No, it is not alerting that makes the game run less smoothly. Take >>alerts away, and we are back to the stop-go of an earlier generation, >>where you had to adopt much slower and less satisfactory methods to find >>out if the opponents were playing strange things - or not bother and >>suffer the consequences. > >I am sure that we would all like to see Bridge being enjoyed at every >level, >without the loss of full disclosure for the opps, and without the >disadvantage >of legalised transfer of UI. It is my belief that to take alerts away will reduce the enjoyment of the game of bridge at every level. >I believe that if CC regulations were observed, there would be no need for >alerts >before opener's rebid, nor after game level has been reached. >All information needed to understand the unalerted bids is well documented, >and >easily read. This may be true, but it is not relevant. CCs do not alert you to problems: alerts do. Furthermore, you will not get well filled-in CCs in clubs whatever you do. Pity, really: CCs are an excellent method of disseminating information. -- 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 Tue Nov 9 04:45:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:18:19 +1100 (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 DAA27748 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:18:03 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA28502 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:17:52 +0100 Received: from ip220.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.220), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb28498; Mon Nov 8 17:17:43 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:17:43 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <00b001bf2980$25946c60$c85208c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <00b001bf2980$25946c60$c85208c3@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 DAA27750 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 00:17:20 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Jesper Dybdal >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 07 November 1999 17:05 >Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure > > >>We basically alert calls that either >>(a) are artificial, or >>(b) can be expected to come as a surprise for opponents. >> >>I sometimes get the idea that two different alert types for these >>two differents categories of calls might be desirable. >> >+=+ Don't you feel that maybe (b) alone > says it all, and would suffice? [If > no-one found it confusing, of course! > :-)) ]. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ That is an interesting thought. I think there is a problem with (b) alone: it is hard to judge which artificial meanings may be a surprise for a specific opposing pair, while the surprising meanings of natural calls probably tend to be more consistent within a local culture. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 06:01:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:01:58 +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 GAA28186 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:01:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:01:40 -0800 Message-ID: <004e01bf2a1b$b0396be0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991107233318.013236b0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:01:32 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 First, Grattan's patience seems inexhaustible. Excerpt from a letter I received from Danny Kleinman (permission to quote granted): ******* In one club game with a client this week, my LHO opened 1C, alerted and explained as "may be shorter than three." After going through the usual series of questions to discover what the opponents' methods really were, and getting only evasions from my RHO, I simply guessed that 1C was their opening with a 4=4=3=2 pattern not falling in their notrump ranges and announced this to my partner. In another club game with a client this week, my LHO (Mary Jane Farell, playing a forcing club) opened 1D, alerted and explained by her client as "may be shorter than three." Again, the client was not forthcoming with full disclosure in reply to queries, so I simply announced to my partner which hand types they opened with a short 1D and told him that it's never shorter than two. Mary Jane accepted my explanation. Technically, my explaining our oppnents' methods for my partner's benefit may be outside the rules, but as the rules are not enforced locally it's necessary for me to do so, since directors allow players to use methods that they won't fully disclose. No harm, no foul, and it saves the five minutes it normally takes to drag information out of short clubbers and short diamonders. ******* He further explained in a following letter: ******* I would like to add: Mary Jane's skill is exceeded only by her graciousness at the table; the client had not been forthcoming in answering when I asked for an explanation; I gave the explanation (having guessed it) not only for that reason but because I knew Mary Jane would be relieved to hear it (as she appeared to be). In retrospect, I think a better procedure would be to turn to an opponent and say, "May I guess what the full explanation is? Please correct me if I am wrong." I would also add that bridge players nowadays have so many weird understandings that my guesses, even when logical, are sometimes wrong, so I need explanations for my own benefit too. ******* Danny is not only a veteran expert in both duplicate and rubber bridge, but one of the most ethical players I have ever known. He himself practices UD (unlimited disclosure) to an extreme, and expects it of others. It is not clear whether Danny waited for his turn to bid before probing for full disclosure concerning the 1C opening. Since failure to disclose properly is an infraction, it seems to me that he didn't have to wait. His method of clearing up the infraction appears to be pragmatically acceptable and ethical, given his playing environment. In a more formal situation, with a capable TD, I suppose one must call the TD, since players cannot legally handle infractions on their own. That could make for a lot of TD calls in this part of the world. Now, all this concerned Alerted calls, which ought to be routinely questioned. In the case of an unAlerted call, I do not believe it is right to say anything unless (and until) one has a genuine personal need for an explanation of the auction, or there are firm grounds for believing that an infraction (incomplete disclosure) has been committed. That takes care of the auction period, but suppose partner is on lead and you, expecting some explanation from the opponents at this time and not getting it, are aware that they have not fully disclosed their parrtnership agreements. Can you say, "Don't lead yet, partner, the opponents might have information to disclose first"? And then call the TD if they don't do that? Or suppose you are the presumptive dummy and the defenders have not disclosed properly in your opinion. What now? My guess is that you can't say anything, but may call the TD before spreading the hand. If dummy has been spread, wait until play is over. Nobody answered my question (or I missed the answer) as to whether it is okay in such situations for a player to explain his/her concern to the TD away from the table, in the interest of avoiding the creation of harmful UI. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 06:16:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:16:56 +1100 (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 GAA28251 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:16:48 +1100 (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 OAA23877 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:17:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991108141815.0072d758@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 14:18:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991107215946.00841690@mail.wcnet.org> References: <19991107191945.33237.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:59 PM 11/7/99 -0500, David wrote: >>>From: "Marvin L. French" > >>> > Any method that can be indicated by checking a box (or circling an >>> >option) on the convention card should not be alertable. > >>I have agreed with this, and with the caveat that some boxes on the >>current ACBL convention card should be removed (I don't think it >>should be required for everyone to be able to recognize Maximal doubles, for >>example, to play tournament bridge). > >Another problem is that the box may not be informative enough. > >If you play "4-suit transfers", is 2NT or 3C the transfer to diamonds? > >If you play "responsive doubles through 3S", which of these doubles are >responsive? (This is one which is apparently a regional difference.) > >(1H)-X-(3H)-X >(1H)-1S-(3H)-X >(2H)-X-(3H)-X >(2H)-2S-(3H)-X [Note that I wrote the sentence indicated by ">>> >".] A checkmark on the CC is, in general, no more a complete description of the meaning of a particular call than is a failure to alert that call, although, like the failure to alert, it may be in some cases. My premise is that alerts are intended for calls that are uncommon, unusual and unexpected ("u/u/u" -- a candidate for David S.'s list?). My "suggested rule" derives from the notion that if there's a checkbox on the CC that does indicate a particular meaning for a call, the call presumably isn't u/u/u. If it is, then, as Marvin says, the checkbox should be removed from the CC. If you play responsive doubles through 3S, then 1H-X-3H-X must be responsive, hence the rule says it would not be alertable. Any of the other doubles David lists would be still alertable if they're considered (by the regulating authority) to be u/u/u. The rule is not suggested to be suitable as a statement of the alert procedure in its entirety. Similarly, if 4-suit transfers are not u/u/u and thus warrant a checkbox, and playing 4-suit transfers means that either 2NT or 3C shows diamonds, then at least one of those options must not be u/u/u and would not be alerted; if the other were considered u/u/u, it would be. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 06:31:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:31:48 +1100 (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 GAA28286 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:31:34 +1100 (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 OAA02690 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:26:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA16118 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:15:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:15:53 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199911081915.OAA16118@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: +esAs6IRxuf71QGGt+oaJQ== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: > >> Very funny, Anne. If a double is normally for takeout in British > >>normal methods then you do not alert it if it is for takeout, and > >>similarly for penalties. > > > >In the sequence 1C-1H-dbl, the double is normally for take-out, with > >all except the newest of beginners, and even some of them are being taught > >this way. Yet it is alertable if it is for take-out. > > I wonder. In the club I play at most I would think about 80% play it > for penalties. I do not think Sputnik doubles is a problem: it seems to > be the one position people do not claim not to understand alerting - > probably because of its frequency. Anyway, I think to change that would > make the rules more complicated which is not a good idea. However, in a > normal later round situation, the alerting of doubles is not usually too > complex. > > > >if it is not as standard practice then you alert. > > >Why is this difficult? Because people pretend it is! > > > >Because you do not find it difficult, you should not assume that when > >someoone tells you that they find it so, that they are not telling you the > >truth. > > I have been told this by many people over time, and I have made > overall judgements based on their comments. I think people make this > particular situation more difficult for themselves than they need to. I agree that the EBU regulations on alerting doubles are pretty easy to understand (with one exception -- see below*), but "If a double is normally for takeout in British normal methods then you do not alert it if it is for takeout, and similarly for penalties" is an oversimplification. In my regular partnerships I play the second double in (1NT)-dbl-(2H)-P-(P)-dbl as takeout. But I'm always uneasy when I (correctly) don't alert it, because 99% of opponents seem to assume that means it is penalty. * the exception: In sequences like (1NT)-P-(2D*)-P-(2H*)-dbl for takeout, where 2D is a transfer, I'm never sure whether I'm supposed to alert. It depends whether 2H is "natural" or not. For the purpose of deciding whether to alert 2H, it counts as not natural, but ... Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 07:08:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 07:08:02 +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 HAA28365 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 07:07:54 +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 PAA04372 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:07:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA27719 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:07:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:07:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911082007.PAA27719@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Technically, my explaining our oppnents' methods for my partner's > benefit may be outside the rules, but as the rules are not enforced > locally it's necessary for me to do so, since directors allow > players to use methods that they won't fully disclose. No harm, no > foul, and it saves the five minutes it normally takes to drag > information out of short clubbers and short diamonders. > In > retrospect, I think a better procedure would be to turn to an > opponent and say, "May I guess what the full explanation is? Please > correct me if I am wrong." I'd call this a "Kaplan question." It certainly isn't a "telling question," and it doesn't seem to be a "pro question" because it comes only _after_ the opponents have failed to disclose properly when asked. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 10:09:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:09:42 +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 KAA28687 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:09:28 +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 SAA11666 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:09:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA27894 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:09:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:09:13 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911082309.SAA27894@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 > By the definition you give low from J9x is *NOT* irrational. ... > You have three cards in a suit. You know with complete and absolute > certainty that no-one else has any, so there is no need to play them in > any specific order to increase the number of tricks. You choose a card > to play. Why do you choose a specific card? Do you have a reason? That's all very well, but it applies _if one were to play on_. We are talking about claims. I agree, in playing on, that orders other than top down can be rational. I just don't see the relevance of this to claims. Given that one is claiming and is stating a complete specification of how a suit is to be cashed, (and leaving aside proved finesses, etc.) is there any rational reason for cashing other than top down? I don't think so. Thus if claimer fails to specify order, it seem reasonable to rule as if the claim statement had included "from top down." Any other order seems irrational _given that one is claiming_. > I am surprised at you, Steve, for giving up so easily. One thing I > have liked about BLML, which was better in the early days, is the method > of trying to solve problems, rather than just give up on them, or ask > some authority to pronounce. I think we would do better to try to > approach a consensus here ... It's a question of priorities. Opinions seem quite entrenched, and players don't seem to be complaining, so this may be an area where national or zonal differences can be left to the future. In the long run, I agree we should strive for consistency, but I think that will be achieved automatically in the ordinary course of events in this particular matter. In any case, once the reasoning on both sides is clear, I don't think reiterating my position is very useful. > Few of us represent our > continents if the truth be told, even those of us who think they do. I am not sure what you are aiming at here. You cannot think I claim to represent anyone other than myself. That should be clear enough from some of my minority (of one?) opinions on other matters! In this matter, there is (we are told) an official ACBL interpretation ("top down"), and several people from North America agree with it, and (as far as I remember) no one from North America has posted any disagreement. The opposite position ("random order") has been supported by several people in the UK and France, although Europeans have not been unanimous. Under the circumstances, citing a "trans-Atlantic difference of opinion" seems reasonable. I believe I have avoided saying "European position," which would, I agree, be an exaggeration. I am not sure whether I have said "North American position," but I don't think it would be wrong to have said it. > > David sticks with considering > >'normal' and gives declarer all the tricks. I wish to consider > >'rational' and say declarer loses the finesse. Both outcomes are > >consistent with our respective approaches. > > I dislike this comment nearly as much as the earlier part of the > article. Either you accept my argument, or you don't: but it is not a > geographical thing. Please do not put it down to that. I'm not sure what "this comment" refers to. Based on BLML messages, there does seem to be a geographical correlation, but I agree that we are dealing with small number statistics. Quite possibly I have extrapolated from insufficient data and drawn a wrong conclusion; if so, it's an occupational hazard. (The 'cfa' in my email address is "Center for Astrophysics." Perhaps I should tell the joke about the astronomer, the physicist, and the mathematician.) Regardless of that, "our respective approaches" referred to David's and mine, as I think should have been clear. David rules based on what the player probably would have done had he played on. (What would be "normal?") I rule based on what it would have been rational for the player to say at the time of the claim, had he made a complete statement. (What would be "rational?") Those are different approaches, regardless of where, geographically, they may be popular, and each of us has consistently followed our preferred approach. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 11:57:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:57:30 +1100 (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 LAA28918 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:57:21 +1100 (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 11kzad-000Pvd-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 00:56:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:46:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >The whole point of this debate is that I believe such actions are fully >complicit with the laws (1997 Edition) as written. When the lawbook >states unambiguously that such behaviour is improper/illegal or whatever >then I will of course follow it. The above is merely an argument for why >I feel the law should not be changed. Forget the detailed argument for a moment: let us consider a principle. There is a Law which is ambiguous [since you and one other read it to mean different things]. An authority who has a right to interpret wherever you are playing bridge makes the interpretation that disagrees with yours. Do you now believe you have a right to follow your interpretation still? Quango says he would be interested in the answer to this question, as against answers that say this is not the actual position. -- 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 Tue Nov 9 11:57:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:57:17 +1100 (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 LAA28906 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:57:08 +1100 (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 11kzad-000Pve-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 00:56:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:48:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Incorrect Quitted Trick References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >wayne wrote: > >>Brd 13 107 >>All Vul 98653 >>Dealer N A643 >> A4 >>J853 AK64 >>AJ7 K42 >>J7 10 >>J1092 K8753 >> Q92 >> Q10 >> KQ9852 >> Q6 >> >>W N E S >>- P 1C 1D >>2C 2H 3C P >>P 3D P P >>3S P P P >> >>Lead H3 >> >>This went to the Q and West's Ace >>Three rounds of trumps followed >>South in with the SQ led a Diamond to partner's Ace and a diamond was >>returned and ruffed on dummy >> >>Events now took an unusual course: >> >>Declarer played the heart four to his Jack but in quitting this trick >>dummy turned down the heart King and apparently noone noticed this >>irregularity. >> >>Declarer ran a club to South's Queen and the King of diamonds was led to >>and held the next trick with declarer pitching a club from hand and a >>"heart" (his precise wording) from table. >> >>Declarer ruffed the next diamond and continued clubs. North winning and >>begins cashing his remaining (now good) hearts. >> >>Declarer now comments "What happened to my King of Hearts?" >> >>Result 3S W -3 >> >>If the King of Hearts had not been quitted in error (agreed fact) and >>declarer had not pitched it on the third round of diamonds (likely) then >>the result would have been 3S W -1 >> >>Is there any basis for adjusting the score? >> >>Would you make a different ruling(s) if Declarer had said "pitch the >>four of hearts" or "low heart" rather than just "heart"? > >This case is exactly described in L45D - dummy played a card which >declarer did not name. This can be corrected until both sides played >to the next trick. Since declarer woke up much later than that, nothing >can be done anymore, and the result stands. The heart king in fact >replaced the heart four after both sides played to the next trick. I wondered about this - but it is not what happened, is it? Dummy played the correct card - and then turned down the wrong one. -- 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 Tue Nov 9 11:57:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:57:42 +1100 (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 LAA28904 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:57:08 +1100 (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 11kzac-0002pJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 00:56:51 +0000 Message-ID: <9xAUo$ACztJ4Ewku@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:22:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure References: <01bf2974$4a539500$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf2974$4a539500$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 >> I have never shown the least scorn at the use of CCs. I believe CCs >>are a good adjunct to the process of informing one's opponents and have >>never said otherwise. >A few quotes of what you have said about CCs > >(1)"The idea of alerting is to help the opponents, not to set up a >framework so that they lose later rulings. Why should opponents have to >refer to or remember CCs? This is not helpful." We have three different interlinked methods of informing opponents of our methods. I think CCs are a great idea. That does not mean that I have anything against alerting. Why should opponents have to look at CCs? The best use of alerting is to remind opponents to do something - ask questions or look at the card. To suggest opponents should replace alerting with continual pawing through a cC is wrong. Alerting is good. So are CCs, but not for alerting purposes, for which they are not suited. >(2). " In the clubs that I play in people arecomfortable with alerts - much >more comfortable than reading CCs. That does not suggest we have got >alerting wrong." So? It would be better if club players were comfortable with everything, but they are not. They are more comfortable with alerts than CCs. For some things, CCs are better, for some things alerts are better. Nothing in this comment of mine suggests otherwise. > (3)" It is not particularly helpful to have people continually scanning CCs >for information. Apart from the plethora of bad CCs, the game would run >most freely when people feel least need to look at a CC without other >compensating disruptions." Absolutely. I am not in favour of playing bridge while continually scanning opponents' CCs. That is a most unsuitable way to play bridge. CCs are an excellent idea, but they do not work to alert opponents that something needs asking about. >(4)"It should be an alternative to the CC. It should not depend on players >remembering or having to refer to their opponents' CC." Very good comment. >(5)"Why should opponents have to refer to or remember CCs? This is not >helpful." Ditto. >It does sound to me as though you think that CCs are as much an evil as >some consider alerts to be. Why? I never said so. CCs are a great adjunct, and very useful, and I never said otherwise. They are useless as a method of alerting, but they are not needed for that. > Is my CC not intended to inform my opps of >anything they might need to know about my system, or is it's only use to be >evidence that an agreement did in fact exist when the TD gets involved. >Perhaps that is what the players think, and that is why it normally lives in >the back pocket until the TD arrives! It does not normally live in the back pocket. This is a slur on a lot of bridge players, the majority of bridge players in England and Wales. If you check next time you play, you will find at Congresses and above, 90% of players put them on the table. In clubs you will find that 70% of players do not have a CC: of the remainder, 80% put them on the table. You have a little check the next few times you play. It is true that not a lot of opponents use them. The reason for this is that [a] some people are not comfortable using them [b] alerts have taken away much of their nonsense use [c] many people find questions an easier method. None of this alters the fact that they are a good adjunct and to suggest their only use is for rulings purposes is ludicrous: more importantly, since this seems to be what your post is about, I neither said it nor believe it. >>>The completion of CCs is a subject for a different thread. Until recently >>>EBU regs insisted on CCs being of a particularly designed format dependant >>>on the event. > > As they do now, of course. >Not exactly The OB1993 said, You must use EBU20 or EBU20a or WBF. Not exactly, no. It was felt that a word processed card in the same order with the same information was close enough. >>>Shall we call for a "standard" format once again? > >You mean like the one in the current regulations? >OB1998 says word processed versions are acceptable as long as they >contain the same information, in the same order. >Edited CC downloads are OK, but "word processed" means different things to >different people, and the same order of information does not necessarily >mean "with little boxes" True. But it needs to clear. The EBU L&EC's view [unanimously] is that the comparison between a Word Processed card in the same order [even without little boxes] and a hand-written card, often illegible, and often less well filled in, is that the WP card is easier for opponents. It is for the opponents that the decision was taken, not for the sake of rulings. >>>I suggest that the alerting of calls because they are not natural is >>>counterproductive when nobody expects the call to be natural anyway. The >>>alerting of calls because the opps might not expect etc., is >>>counterproductive as it only says look at the CC or ask. >> >> Of course, this is wrong. The advantage of the alert system is that >>people know whether to bother to do anything else about it. That is why >>club players like it: they don't need to start thumbing through a CC for >>an unalerted call. >EBU20 is a two sided sheet. You don't have to thumb through it. You search through it. Players do not find it that easy. Because EBU 20 has less space for information, and no summary, it is easier to get information from an EBU 20A than from an EBU 20 anyway. >>>When we get to the alerting of doubles, a realm of fantasy for most. >Players >>>in general alert doubles at random. To expect players to become expert in >>>the language which the OB uses to describe doubles, is to expect the Red >Sox >>>to win whatever it is they play. >> >> Very funny, Anne. If a double is normally for takeout in British >>normal methods then you do not alert it if it is for takeout, and >>similarly for penalties. > >In the sequence 1C-1H-dbl, the double is normally for take-out, with >all except the newest of beginners, and even some of them are being taught >this way. Yet it is alertable if it is for take-out. I wonder. In the club I play at most I would think about 80% play it for penalties. I do not think Sputnik doubles is a problem: it seems to be the one position people do not claim not to understand alerting - probably because of its frequency. Anyway, I think to change that would make the rules more complicated which is not a good idea. However, in a normal later round situation, the alerting of doubles is not usually too complex. > >if it is not as standard practice then you alert. > >Why is this difficult? Because people pretend it is! > >Because you do not find it difficult, you should not assume that when >someoone tells you that they find it so, that they are not telling you the >truth. I have been told this by many people over time, and I have made overall judgements based on their comments. I think people make this particular situation more difficult for themselves than they need to. >>>A well completed CC _is_ an alert. It meets the requirements of an alert >as >>>defined. >> >> No, it does not. An alert tells you whether you need to do anything >>about this one specific call. A CC does not do that: you have to search >>through it to find the call. Alerting is so much simpler. > >And so much more use as UI, in many situations which are difficult to >police. >I know we rely on the ethical actions of players not to take advantage of >the >fact that they now know how partner is taking their bid. However we do not >trust >them so much that we think that at high level thay do not need screens, and >at > a lower level it is difficult to convince a player that they have to >un-know >something and deliberately now make a choice of bid that they now know will >be misconstrued. That is a different argument. Of course, there are UI problems. however, having CCs replace alerts would do so much more damage to the game that it is an undesirable regression. >> No, it is not alerting that makes the game run less smoothly. Take >>alerts away, and we are back to the stop-go of an earlier generation, >>where you had to adopt much slower and less satisfactory methods to find >>out if the opponents were playing strange things - or not bother and >>suffer the consequences. > >I am sure that we would all like to see Bridge being enjoyed at every >level, >without the loss of full disclosure for the opps, and without the >disadvantage >of legalised transfer of UI. It is my belief that to take alerts away will reduce the enjoyment of the game of bridge at every level. >I believe that if CC regulations were observed, there would be no need for >alerts >before opener's rebid, nor after game level has been reached. >All information needed to understand the unalerted bids is well documented, >and >easily read. This may be true, but it is not relevant. CCs do not alert you to problems: alerts do. Furthermore, you will not get well filled-in CCs in clubs whatever you do. Pity, really: CCs are an excellent method of disseminating information. -- 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 Tue Nov 9 11:57:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:57:19 +1100 (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 LAA28905 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:57:08 +1100 (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 11kzad-000Pvf-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 00:56:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:02:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The case of the angry absentee References: <3.0.1.32.19991108101358.00972630@chance.otago.ac.nz> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991108101358.00972630@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: >Scene: Second to last round of the club pairs championships >Persona: Two contending pairs. N is playing director (owing to the >scheduled director being called in to work at the last moment.) > >EW have an alert-ridden auction to 4H by W. South on lead asks for an >explanation of some calls. W makes an explanation, which E points out is a >little incomplete. W now remarks that he wouldn't expect S to give a >complete explanation so why should he? S takes offense (not unreasonably >though the initial remark was intended as flippant.) Now things get a bit >serious ... but in a quiet sort of Kiwi way, for example the club recorder >sitting at the next table never realised that there was a problem. Anyhow, >the allegation is repeated, S demands an apology, seconded by E, one is >given, S claims it is insincere (possibly with some justifaction). S >decides he has been intolerably provoked and simply leaves the table. >Subsequently S returns and plays the remainder of the session (but not the >two boards scheduled against this EW). > >After S's departure the hapless director's assistant (yours truly) is >called to the table by E, and promptly sent away again by N (the playing >director) with words to the effect of "we'll sort it out at the end of the >session". This is disgraceful. North has no right to do this. When East called you to the table you were the Director, and for the sake of this ruling, North was just a player. > At the end of the session I'm told by the director that boards >A+B will require an adjusted score as "we" refused to play them. I check >that "we" means NS and not everyone at the table. I do not know the facts >in the paragraph above, nor do I make any effort to determine at this time >what precipitated the refusal. I am afraid that you should have: you need all the facts. > I rule, routinely as far as I am concerned, >60% to EW, 40% to NS, plus a 40% procedural penalty to NS, so effectively >60-0. I also make a serious procedural error -- I'm so attuned to the >notion that the adjustment is automatic (and expected by all parties >concerned) that I don't specifically tell them the results of the adjustment. > >I also inform the club recorder and club captain that there has obviously >been some sort of "incident" which may well require a disciplinary >investigation/hearing, and make sure that they recognise that the situation >is quite serious. On my own, I find out, largely from EW the course of events. > >When S discovers the results of the adjustment he is most upset. He argues >that as the injured, non-offending party, he if anyone should be getting >the 60% board, and EW the 0. He demands a re-adjustment, and continues to >do so. He has some sort of case, insofar as both sides contributed to this incident. >This is the sort of issue on which I think official procedural guidance >would be useful. The logic which I used to decide my adjustment was that >given the unilateral action by S in causing the boards to become >unplayable, it was not up to me in deciding the score adjustment for those >particular boards to address any further issues (though I expected them to >be addressed in subsequent investigation.) Effectively, by walking out, I >maintain that S changed a single infraction of proprieties by W, into two >infractions, the second of which (his own) was what caused the boards to >become unplayable. To make any ruling, you need all the facts. When you get all the facts you will discover that actions by both sides led to the boards being unplayable. >Had S properly called me while the dispute was taking place, then I would >have been in a position to try and defuse the situation (probably >impossible) and convince the players to play the boards, and failing that, >to make a judgement regarding the extent of the provocation and whether or >not it was reasonable to expect the boards to be played. If not, then >probably 50-50 all round, plus an immediate committee hearing to decide >what, if any, further penalties would be appropriate. Committees are there to review rulings. I would think a ruling of 50-50 is not suitable. You give 50-50 on the boards of course, now you have discovered that both sides contributed. E/W made unfortunate remarks that contributed. Fine them 25%. South walked out rather than talk to you. Fine him 50%. North sent you away when you tried to find out what was happening. fine him 25%. I suggest that minus 25% - plus 25% was nearer, and report the lot to the recorder. If N/S feel aggrieved by this, then you might point out two things: [a] For a player to send a Director away from the table by pulling rank is totally inexcusable [b] the normal punishment for refusal to play boards is disqualification from the event -- 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 Tue Nov 9 11:57:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:57:36 +1100 (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 LAA28907 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:57:11 +1100 (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 11kzal-0002pU-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 00:57:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:53:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure 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 >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>>I went round in circles tonight (UK alert regs) >>> >>>1S x 2D ? (btw it's clear P P 1S x 2D [NF] is not alertable in UK) >>> >>> alertable? alertable if forcing? alertable if non-forcing? >>> >>> what about 1C x 1S ? any difference >>> >>>offers? let us know which jurisdiction as it may well be different in >>>ACBL, or Oz or wherever >>> >>>I'm not sure I know the answer btw - the FOB is not entirely clear here >>>to my mind. >> >>5.4.4 >> You should not alert: >> >> (d) a natural response to an opening bid when a >> takeout double has intervened whether forcing >> or non-forcing >> >> Please explain the lack of clarity. > >5.4.2 Because you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non- >forcing in a way your opponents are unlikely to expect, you must alert: > >a) a non-forcing new suit response to an opening bid, unless: > i) responder has previously passed > ii) the opening bid was doubled > etc > >which seems entirely at odds with 5.4.4 because it suggests I should >alert some of the time (including when it is forcing) Oh, tish! It says you do not alert a non-forcing new suit response when the opening was doubled - which is totally in agreement with 5.4.4! -- 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 Tue Nov 9 12:24:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:24:36 +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 MAA29000 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:24:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.95.158] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11l019-0001eD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:24:15 +0000 Message-ID: <000901bf2a51$05f01180$9e5fac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199911082309.SAA27894@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:23:25 -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 Having started this particular hare, I have read the responses with much interest, and am grateful for the time that people have spared to deal with what might appear an insignificant problem. All I can say is that in practical terms - that is, in terms of the ratio of number of cases to arguments and ill-feeling generated by what appear arbitrary and inconsistent rulings - contested claims are very high on the list of priorities for a referee / AC chairman in the real world. That is why I raised the point in the first place. When I posed my first set of "simple" cases, I was not aware of the ACBL "top down" guidance. I must say that it seems to me a step in the right direction; at least it states a principle which can be easily understood and easily applied without obvious loss of equity. The latest message from Steve Willner to the effect that when a player claims, we need not consider what he might actually do if the Laws did not permit a claim and he had to play the hand is an interesting one - it is, of course, reinforced by the statement in the Laws that "after any claim... play ceases", but I think it reasonable to assume that in adjudicating a claim, at least some consideration should be given to what might have happened had play continued. For myself, I have always thought that a claim accompanied by no statement is, in effect, an assertion that the claimer believes that the rest of his cards are good and will win tricks *in whatever order he plays them*. Now, as Mike Amos and others have pointed out, if that is what the claimer believes, then he would have no "reason" to play AK2 in the order A-K-2 as opposed to 2-K-A (and, of course, no "reason" to play J95 in the order J-9-5 as opposed to, say, 9-5-J). But the consensus certainly appears to be that it would be irrational to play AK2 in any order that did not involve playing the 2 last; the jury is still out on J95. Many have had recourse to the dictionary definition of "irrational" in order to support their arguments; the notion has been advanced that a play may be "normal" and yet "irrational", because players like John Probst will normally do crazy things like signalling to dummy. I think that it may be helpful to try to interpret the word "irrational" in the narrower context of the bridge Laws - that is, to say that something is "irrational" if it would be contrary to "bridge reason", a concept to which we appeal in the context of Law 73 (though the term does not actually appear in the wording of the Law). The "top down" principle is grounded in "bridge reason", and appears to me sound to that extent. It would deal with the J95 case by saying that it would be contrary to "bridge reason" (and hence "irrational") to play the nine before the jack. I would have no difficulty at all with a principle that said: if a claim is not accompanied by a statement as to the order in which cards will be played, that claim should be adjudicated on the basis that the claimer's cards (and his partner's) are played in the legal order least advantageous to the claimer. But I can understand the objections to this principle on equitable grounds, and I can see that in the minds of many players, it would appear contrary to equity. Certainly, the majority of the replies to my questions do not indicate that there would be general support for such a principle - the question then arises: what should we put in its place? In passing, there appears to be some support for the view that a player who claims with AKQJ in one suit and the 2 in another might "carelessly" play the 2 before the AKQJ and lose the rest. Whether this is inconsistent with the view that a player with AKQJ2 in the same suit might "carelessly" play the 2 before the AKQJ and lose the rest is not clear to me, though it appears so to others. At any rate, while the debate continues, I see no reason to attempt to impose my views. Once again, my thanks to those who have shed some light on what to me has always been a difficult (and relevant) area. Ton Kooijman told me some months ago that claims were easy and I ought not to make a fuss abouth them; perhaps they are, and perhaps I oughtn't. I leave you with a case from this year's Lederer tournament (a top invitational event here in London; all players supposedly of international class): K742 654 J1032 65 A3 108 AK9854 AQ8 West North East South 1H 2D Pass 3D Pass 3H Pass 4D Pass 5D All pass West leads H7, East wins the jack and continues with the queen, West playing the 3 (consistent with a doubleton). Declarer (Boris Schapiro) claims, tabling his cards and saying: "I know how to play this hand. If the club finesse works, I make it, otherwise I go down, but if West has three diamonds I go down anyway." West has three small hearts and the singleton queen of diamonds; East has the king of clubs (in a 3-5-2-3 shape). Does declarer make his contract? Would he make it if West had three hearts and DQx? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 12:29:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:29:40 +1100 (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 MAA29019 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:29:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.4] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11l066-0009zi-00; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:29:22 +0000 Message-ID: <001201bf2a51$d30b1660$045108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 00:52:42 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: 08 November 1999 16:01 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >> +=+ This sets it out fairly enough. The last >> words express exactly my purpose in several >> times repeating the 1999 WBFLC ruling, the >> WBFLC being constitutionally authorized and >> required to interpret the laws.~ Grattan ~ +=+ > TW: >The 1999 WBFLC ruling is not 'the law' merely *an* interpretation where, >in different circumstances, a different interpretation might have been >given. > +=+ If you choose, Tim, to believe this fantasy, so be it. Meanwhile, for the generality it presents an absolute assertion of what is the law - with no attachment to any particular set of circumstances and no suggestion that it is 'an interpretation'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 13:05:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:05:45 +1100 (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 NAA29062 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:05:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.95.158] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11l0dr-00038L-00; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 02:04:15 +0000 Message-ID: <001801bf2a56$9df079c0$9e5fac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <3.0.1.32.19991107233318.013236b0@pop.mindspring.com> <004e01bf2a1b$b0396be0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 02:03:28 -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 Marvin wrote: > First, Grattan's patience seems inexhaustible. Seems, Marvin? Nay, it is - I know not "seems". It is blindingly obvious from the wording of the Laws that one is not permitted to ask questions solely for the purpose of ensuring that partner is able to share in your knowledge of the enemy methods. He is supposed to find that out for himself; if he does not, then he (and by extension, your partnership and your team) may suffer, but that is his fault (or yours, for not briefing him sufficiently in advance). It is less obvious that one should not take upon oneself the burden of correcting what one knows to be inadequate or misleading information given to partner by asking a question for the purposes of "clarification". I am of the opinion that one should not, for the Laws are supposed to give partner the protection he may require, and even player-lawyers of Kaplan's status should not presume to be above those Laws. (The word "especially" might be substituted for the word "even" in the above sentence with no loss of force, but de mortuis...). However, it should be remembered that Edgar Kaplan was as human as the rest of us; his stance may well have been: "If those sons born out of wedlock are going to break the Laws by not telling us what their bidding means, then I'm going to break the Laws by asking a question to make sure that Norman [Kay] knows what it really does mean, and then we can all get on with the game." In that way, Kaplan might have been hoping to avoid having to take the matter to arbitration, since he might have felt that to do so would confer upon his side an unfair advantage due to his pre-eminent position. Who is to say that he was wrong? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 13:42:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:42:13 +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 NAA29129 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:42:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegi8.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.72]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA11117 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:41:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991108213915.006acb40@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 21:39:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:46 PM 11/8/99 +0000, David wrote: > Forget the detailed argument for a moment: let us consider a >principle. > > There is a Law which is ambiguous [since you and one other read it to >mean different things]. > > An authority who has a right to interpret wherever you are playing >bridge makes the interpretation that disagrees with yours. > > Do you now believe you have a right to follow your interpretation >still? I believe that this is an important question, quite apart from the merits of the underlying debate. You and Grattan have both hinted at the authority of the WBF LC to provide commentary and interpretation which carries the force of Law. It is an interesting omission, but I find no mention of that authority _within the Laws themselves_. I do not have access to the charter of the WBF, nor any written source material which either grants or limits the right of the LC to amend the Laws in this fashion. I acknowledge that the two of you enjoy a much greater familiarity with the powers and rights granted to this body than I have. But it does seem to me that such a haphazard process of amendment, lacking any coherent vehicle for the dissemination of these decisions to the broad bridge-playing public, could not be in the best interests of consistent application of the Laws. Please understand that nobody, on either side of this issue, claims the right to violate the Laws. But some of us are less clear about our obligation to hew to an interpretation offered by the WBF LC, especially when that interpretation is belied by one of the pre-eminent authorities in the field. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 14:27:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA29250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:27:30 +1100 (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 OAA29245 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:27:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.95.158] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11l1w2-00069a-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:27:06 +0000 Message-ID: <005601bf2a62$3414c040$9e5fac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Protect yourself Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:26:24 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk London v Norway, 1999 Lederer: A K62 J1065 QJ1032 72 KJ983 AJ9854 73 92 AK874 964 A Q10654 Q10 Q3 K875 West North East South Austberg Callaghan Helgemo Burn Pass Pass 1S Pass 2H (1) Dble 2S 3C All pass (1) Alerted and explained as "five hearts and two spades" West led S2 (low from doubletons), ace, three (encouraging), four. South played CQ from dummy, ace, five, six. East played AK and another diamond. South asked again about 2H, and was told "five hearts and two spades". Suppose he had gone one down by discarding on the third round of diamonds, and suppose he then asked for a ruling. What would you give him, if anything? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 15:19:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:19:21 +1100 (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 PAA29345 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:19:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehjc.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.108]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA10769 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:19:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991108231620.0130e5c4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 23:16:20 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <001801bf2a56$9df079c0$9e5fac3e@davidburn> References: <3.0.1.32.19991107233318.013236b0@pop.mindspring.com> <004e01bf2a1b$b0396be0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:03 AM 11/9/99 -0000, David B wrote: >It is blindingly obvious from the wording of the Laws that one is not permitted to ask >questions solely for the purpose of ensuring that partner is able to >share in your knowledge of the enemy methods. "Blindingly obvious??" Well certainly that makes debate quite unnecessary. How very convenient! But humor me, please. Which part of L73B1 refers, either directly or obliquely, to the concept of "purpose"? And when you sort that out, how about the "solely for" language. Is it permitted to ask questions with the dual purpose of informing myself and partner? How can you tell from such blindingly obvious language? And is it possible that it is your own prejudgement of the question, rather than the wording, which has blinded you? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 20:32:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:32:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA29990 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:31:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb0s10a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.90.177] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11l7cf-0006Ma-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:31:30 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:31:22 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2a95$2f67f8e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Date: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 4:03 AM Subject: Protect yourself >London v Norway, 1999 Lederer: > > A > K62 > J1065 > QJ1032 >72 KJ983 >AJ9854 73 >92 AK874 >964 A > Q10654 > Q10 > Q3 > K875 > >West North East South >Austberg Callaghan Helgemo Burn >Pass Pass 1S Pass >2H (1) Dble 2S 3C >All pass > >(1) Alerted and explained as "five hearts and two spades" > >West led S2 (low from doubletons), ace, three (encouraging), four. >South played CQ from dummy, ace, five, six. East played AK and another >diamond. South asked again about 2H, and was told "five hearts and two >spades". Suppose he had gone one down by discarding on the third round >of diamonds, and suppose he then asked for a ruling. What would you >give him, if anything? Short shrift Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 20:37:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA00106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:37:06 +1100 (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 UAA00100 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:36:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.45] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11l7hf-000J3n-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:36:39 +0000 Message-ID: <002401bf2a95$e5ebe900$2d5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 08:43:57 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: 09 November 1999 01:39 Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure >Anne Jones wrote: >>From: David Stevenson > >>> I have never shown the least scorn at the use of CCs. I believe CCs >>>are a good adjunct to the process of informing one's opponents and have >>>never said otherwise. > >>A few quotes of what you have said about CCs >> >>(1)"The idea of alerting is to help the opponents, not to set up a >>framework so that they lose later rulings. Why should opponents have to >>refer to or remember CCs? This is not helpful." > > We have three different interlinked methods of informing opponents of >our methods. I think CCs are a great idea. That does not mean that I >have anything against alerting. Why should opponents have to look at >CCs? The best use of alerting is to remind opponents to do something - >ask questions or look at the card. To suggest opponents should replace >alerting with continual pawing through a cC is wrong. Alerting is good. >So are CCs, but not for alerting purposes, for which they are not >suited. > >>(2). " In the clubs that I play in people arecomfortable with alerts - much >>more comfortable than reading CCs. That does not suggest we have got >>alerting wrong." > > So? It would be better if club players were comfortable with >everything, but they are not. They are more comfortable with alerts >than CCs. For some things, CCs are better, for some things alerts are >better. Nothing in this comment of mine suggests otherwise. > >> (3)" It is not particularly helpful to have people continually scanning CCs >>for information. Apart from the plethora of bad CCs, the game would run >>most freely when people feel least need to look at a CC without other >>compensating disruptions." > > Absolutely. I am not in favour of playing bridge while continually >scanning opponents' CCs. That is a most unsuitable way to play bridge. >CCs are an excellent idea, but they do not work to alert opponents that >something needs asking about. > >>(4)"It should be an alternative to the CC. It should not depend on players >>remembering or having to refer to their opponents' CC." > > Very good comment. > >>(5)"Why should opponents have to refer to or remember CCs? This is not >>helpful." > > Ditto. > >>It does sound to me as though you think that CCs are as much an evil as >>some consider alerts to be. > > Why? I never said so. CCs are a great adjunct, and very useful, and >I never said otherwise. They are useless as a method of alerting, but >they are not needed for that. > >> Is my CC not intended to inform my opps of >>anything they might need to know about my system, or is it's only use to be >>evidence that an agreement did in fact exist when the TD gets involved. >>Perhaps that is what the players think, and that is why it normally lives in >>the back pocket until the TD arrives! > > It does not normally live in the back pocket. This is a slur on a lot >of bridge players, the majority of bridge players in England and Wales. >If you check next time you play, you will find at Congresses and above, >90% of players put them on the table. In clubs you will find that 70% >of players do not have a CC: of the remainder, 80% put them on the >table. You have a little check the next few times you play. > > It is true that not a lot of opponents use them. The reason for this >is that [a] some people are not comfortable using them [b] alerts have >taken away much of their nonsense use [c] many people find questions an >easier method. > > None of this alters the fact that they are a good adjunct and to >suggest their only use is for rulings purposes is ludicrous: more >importantly, since this seems to be what your post is about, I neither >said it nor believe it. > >>>>The completion of CCs is a subject for a different thread. Until recently >>>>EBU regs insisted on CCs being of a particularly designed format dependant >>>>on the event. >> > As they do now, of course. >>Not exactly The OB1993 said, You must use EBU20 or EBU20a or WBF. > > Not exactly, no. It was felt that a word processed card in the same >order with the same information was close enough. > >>>>Shall we call for a "standard" format once again? >> >You mean like the one in the current regulations? >>OB1998 says word processed versions are acceptable as long as they >>contain the same information, in the same order. >>Edited CC downloads are OK, but "word processed" means different things to >>different people, and the same order of information does not necessarily >>mean "with little boxes" > > True. But it needs to clear. The EBU L&EC's view [unanimously] is >that the comparison between a Word Processed card in the same order >[even without little boxes] and a hand-written card, often illegible, >and often less well filled in, is that the WP card is easier for >opponents. It is for the opponents that the decision was taken, not for >the sake of rulings. > >>>>I suggest that the alerting of calls because they are not natural is >>>>counterproductive when nobody expects the call to be natural anyway. The >>>>alerting of calls because the opps might not expect etc., is >>>>counterproductive as it only says look at the CC or ask. >>> >>> Of course, this is wrong. The advantage of the alert system is that >>>people know whether to bother to do anything else about it. That is why >>>club players like it: they don't need to start thumbing through a CC for >>>an unalerted call. >>EBU20 is a two sided sheet. You don't have to thumb through it. > > You search through it. Players do not find it that easy. Because EBU >20 has less space for information, and no summary, it is easier to get >information from an EBU 20A than from an EBU 20 anyway. > >>>>When we get to the alerting of doubles, a realm of fantasy for most. >>Players >>>>in general alert doubles at random. To expect players to become expert in >>>>the language which the OB uses to describe doubles, is to expect the Red >>Sox >>>>to win whatever it is they play. >>> >>> Very funny, Anne. If a double is normally for takeout in British >>>normal methods then you do not alert it if it is for takeout, and >>>similarly for penalties. >> >>In the sequence 1C-1H-dbl, the double is normally for take-out, with >>all except the newest of beginners, and even some of them are being taught >>this way. Yet it is alertable if it is for take-out. > > I wonder. In the club I play at most I would think about 80% play it >for penalties. I do not think Sputnik doubles is a problem: it seems to >be the one position people do not claim not to understand alerting - >probably because of its frequency. Anyway, I think to change that would >make the rules more complicated which is not a good idea. However, in a >normal later round situation, the alerting of doubles is not usually too >complex. > >> >if it is not as standard practice then you alert. >> >Why is this difficult? Because people pretend it is! >> >>Because you do not find it difficult, you should not assume that when >>someoone tells you that they find it so, that they are not telling you the >>truth. > > I have been told this by many people over time, and I have made >overall judgements based on their comments. I think people make this >particular situation more difficult for themselves than they need to. > >>>>A well completed CC _is_ an alert. It meets the requirements of an alert >>as >>>>defined. >>> >>> No, it does not. An alert tells you whether you need to do anything >>>about this one specific call. A CC does not do that: you have to search >>>through it to find the call. Alerting is so much simpler. >> >>And so much more use as UI, in many situations which are difficult to >>police. >>I know we rely on the ethical actions of players not to take advantage of >>the >>fact that they now know how partner is taking their bid. However we do not >>trust >>them so much that we think that at high level thay do not need screens, and >>at >> a lower level it is difficult to convince a player that they have to >>un-know >>something and deliberately now make a choice of bid that they now know will >>be misconstrued. > > That is a different argument. Of course, there are UI problems. >however, having CCs replace alerts would do so much more damage to the >game that it is an undesirable regression. > >>> No, it is not alerting that makes the game run less smoothly. Take >>>alerts away, and we are back to the stop-go of an earlier generation, >>>where you had to adopt much slower and less satisfactory methods to find >>>out if the opponents were playing strange things - or not bother and >>>suffer the consequences. >> >>I am sure that we would all like to see Bridge being enjoyed at every >>level, >>without the loss of full disclosure for the opps, and without the >>disadvantage >>of legalised transfer of UI. > > It is my belief that to take alerts away will reduce the enjoyment of >the game of bridge at every level. > >>I believe that if CC regulations were observed, there would be no need for >>alerts >>before opener's rebid, nor after game level has been reached. >>All information needed to understand the unalerted bids is well documented, >>and >>easily read. > > This may be true, but it is not relevant. CCs do not alert you to >problems: alerts do. Furthermore, you will not get well filled-in CCs >in clubs whatever you do. Pity, really: CCs are an excellent method of >disseminating information. > +=+ Well, that's clear then. Er, what was that at the beginning? +=+ ~G~ :-> From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 20:37:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA00127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:37:09 +1100 (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 UAA00102 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:37:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.45] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11l7hi-000J3n-00; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:36:42 +0000 Message-ID: <002501bf2a95$e7b8b9c0$2d5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:32:42 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: 09 November 1999 01:48 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >Tim West-meads wrote: > >>The whole point of this debate is that I believe such actions are fully >>complicit with the laws (1997 Edition) as written. When the lawbook >>states unambiguously that such behaviour is improper/illegal or whatever >>then I will of course follow it. The above is merely an argument for why >>I feel the law should not be changed. > > Forget the detailed argument for a moment: let us consider a >principle. > > There is a Law which is ambiguous [since you and one other read it to >mean different things]. > > An authority who has a right to interpret wherever you are playing >bridge makes the interpretation that disagrees with yours. > > Do you now believe you have a right to follow your interpretation >still? > > Quango says he would be interested in the answer to this question, as >against answers that say this is not the actual position. > +=+ Interesting question. Tim's apparent position is that under Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights and the United States Constitution, each player and Director is entitled to make up h(**) own mind as to the meaning of the law. It is not manifest to me that either the European or the US Courts sustain this point of view; I seem to recall judgements handed down which are binding on all. It occurs to me, therefore, that what may be lacking in Tim's statement is a reference to the national, zonal or world ruling that he is following - I accept the fact that there are differences amongst them in places, but I am also aware of a view that the obiter dictum published by Kaplan in 1981 (and the 1991 European, 1999 World, affirmations on the question) have not been the subject of a corporate ACBL ruling. This may now come, if in fact nothing was said already when the WBFLC Lille minutes were received by the ACBL and all NCBOs. Since the WBF and the EBL are in line on the matter it will make for good dancing if, hopefully, the ACBL adheres to the same judgment. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 20:45:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA00180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:45:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from nbrmr1001.ac.com (NBRMR1001.ac.com [170.252.248.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA00175 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:45:13 +1100 (EST) From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from emehm1101.ac.com ([10.10.5.1]) by nbrmr1001.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA12467 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:44:34 -0600 (CST) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 86256824.0035E326 ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:48:31 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ANDERSEN CONSULTING@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING To: "bridge-laws" Message-ID: <86256824.0035C12D.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:25:01 +0100 Subject: Re: Protect yourself Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> Suppose he had gone one down by discarding on the third round of diamonds, and suppose he then asked for a ruling. What would you give him, if anything? << I would give him a blank stare, because I would be very surprised to be called to the table for a case like this. For two reasons: a) Lengths are by default stated by the minimal number of cards required, e.g. six cards for a weak two if seven are also possible. I would always explain "six cards" without bothering to mention that partner (for whatever reason and once in a blue moon) may hold seven. This may be careless, but is accepted practice. b) Declarer got some strong clues in the play. First, East did not raise hearts and instead opted for a 7 card fit. Second, on this level of play, the defense made it pretty obvious that diamonds would be 5-2. Else a switch to hearts after cashing the first diamond would be obligatory and killing. Just my 2c worth, Christian >> London v Norway, 1999 Lederer: A K62 J1065 QJ1032 72 KJ983 AJ9854 73 92 AK874 964 A Q10654 Q10 Q3 K875 West North East South Austberg Callaghan Helgemo Burn Pass Pass 1S Pass 2H (1) Dble 2S 3C All pass (1) Alerted and explained as "five hearts and two spades" West led S2 (low from doubletons), ace, three (encouraging), four. South played CQ from dummy, ace, five, six. East played AK and another diamond. South asked again about 2H, and was told "five hearts and two spades". << From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 20:45:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA00198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:45:55 +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 UAA00184 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:45:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.99.45.46] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11l7qN-00051S-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:45:40 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01bf2a97$0fabaa40$2e2d63c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991107233318.013236b0@pop.mindspring.com><004e01bf2a1b$b0396be0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991108231620.0130e5c4@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:42:55 -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 Michael wrote: > >It is blindingly obvious from the wording of the Laws that one is not > >permitted to ask > >questions solely for the purpose of ensuring that partner is able to > >share in your knowledge of the enemy methods. > > "Blindingly obvious??" Well certainly that makes debate quite unnecessary. > How very convenient! Quite so. This debate is one of the more pointless and unnecessary ones with which this list has managed to concern itself. And my patience, unlike Grattan's, is very far from inexhaustible. > But humor me, please. Which part of L73B1 refers, either directly or > obliquely, to the concept of "purpose"? The Law itself does not contain the word "purpose". But the Law refers to "communication", which I think it reasonable to regard as a purposeful activity. "Partners shall not communicate" appears to me equivalent to "partners shall not engage in activity for the purpose of communication". I do not know whether you consider this an adequate answer to what I confess to finding a wholly incomprehensible question. > And when you sort that out, how > about the "solely for" language? Law 20F gives the right to ask questions. It has been argued that this right is unqualified, and therefore permits the asking of any of three kinds of question that have been distinguished. But even the proponents of that point of view will concede (I think) that it is not in fact permitted to ask questions for the purpose (apologies if this word continues to cause difficulty) of directing partner's attention to the possibility of bidding or leading a particular suit. The right to ask questions under Law 20F is therefore a qualified right, and abuse of it may be an infraction under Law 73B1. It is Grattan's contention and mine that asking questions other than for the purpose of eliciting information that one does not oneself possess is an abuse of the right granted under Law 20F and may be contrary to Law 73. > Is it permitted to ask questions with the > dual purpose of informing myself and partner? No. Obviously, it is inevitable that if I ask a question because I genuinely require the answer, partner will hear it also under "normal" table conditions. But this does not mean that the right is conferred by the Laws. One might as well ask: is it permitted, playing with screens, for me to ask a question, hear the answer, and then go round the other side of the screen to tell partner what I have asked and what I have learned. As I have said before, the Laws presume an ideal set of conditions - in this context, those ideal conditions are that partner does not hear either the questions I ask or the answers I receive. That is what is (obviously) meant by the words "Partners shall not communicate through... questions asked of the opponents or through... explanations given to them." > How can you tell from such > blindingly obvious language? I happen to speak English, in which language the Laws are (fortunately for me) written. > And is it possible that it is your own > prejudgement of the question, rather than the wording, which has blinded you? Do you ask this question for your own information? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 9 21:51:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:51:32 +1100 (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 VAA00323 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:51:05 +1100 (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 LAA25700 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:50:29 +0100 Message-ID: <3827FC7B.F6103F7F@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 11:50:35 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <199911082309.SAA27894@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000901bf2a51$05f01180$9e5fac3e@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > K742 > 654 > J1032 > 65 > > A3 > 108 > AK9854 > AQ8 > > West North East South > 1H 2D > Pass 3D Pass 3H > Pass 4D Pass 5D > All pass > > West leads H7, East wins the jack and continues with the queen, West > playing the 3 (consistent with a doubleton). Declarer (Boris Schapiro) > claims, tabling his cards and saying: "I know how to play this hand. > If the club finesse works, I make it, otherwise I go down, but if West > has three diamonds I go down anyway." West has three small hearts and > the singleton queen of diamonds; East has the king of clubs (in a > 3-5-2-3 shape). Does declarer make his contract? Would he make it if > West had three hearts and DQx? > > David Burn > London, England For my money, he doesn't. It is not irrational, IM(H)O, to ruff high and finesse the Q of D. There is nothing in the claim statement suggesting that declarer will ruff low and play D from the top (don't tell that he might ruff high and then play D from the top; this line is clearly inferior to two others). Here is another example quite similar to the one above. Declarer opened 4S and everyone passed. The defense cashed the first six tricks in side suits and declarer said: "I have the rest". His spades were, however, AKJ10xxx - xx. Yes the queen was doubleton offside and the TD gave one more trick to the defenders - a right decision in my view. I think that the "top down" guidance should only be applied in simple cash out situations. My personal view is that if declarer has some reasonable options (OK, normal, rational, if you insist) then if he doesn't mention explicitly which line he will take - he should be ruled against. The TD shouldn't assume that that he will take the "top down" line of play; even if it happens to be the best one. If both cases finessing the Q of trumps is not irrational. Thus, 5D -1 if first case, 4S -4 in the second. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Nov 9 22:08:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 22:08:04 +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 WAA00416 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 22:07:56 +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 11l96K-0005gN-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:06:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 02:19:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <199911082309.SAA27894@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000901bf2a51$05f01180$9e5fac3e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000901bf2a51$05f01180$9e5fac3e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Many have had recourse to the dictionary definition of "irrational" in >order to support their arguments; the notion has been advanced that a >play may be "normal" and yet "irrational", because players like John >Probst will normally do crazy things like signalling to dummy. I think >that it may be helpful to try to interpret the word "irrational" in >the narrower context of the bridge Laws - that is, to say that >something is "irrational" if it would be contrary to "bridge reason", >a concept to which we appeal in the context of Law 73 (though the term >does not actually appear in the wording of the Law). The "top down" >principle is grounded in "bridge reason", and appears to me sound to >that extent. It would deal with the J95 case by saying that it would >be contrary to "bridge reason" (and hence "irrational") to play the >nine before the jack. This shows where my difference lies: I agree with the term, and I believe that there is often "bridge reason" to play the nine. -- 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 Tue Nov 9 22:07:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 22:07:59 +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 WAA00410 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 22:07:50 +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 11l96V-0005gM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:06:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 02:15:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <199911082309.SAA27894@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199911082309.SAA27894@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 >> By the definition you give low from J9x is *NOT* irrational. >... >> You have three cards in a suit. You know with complete and absolute >> certainty that no-one else has any, so there is no need to play them in >> any specific order to increase the number of tricks. You choose a card >> to play. Why do you choose a specific card? Do you have a reason? > >That's all very well, but it applies _if one were to play on_. We are >talking about claims. I agree, in playing on, that orders other than >top down can be rational. I just don't see the relevance of this to >claims. > >Given that one is claiming and is stating a complete specification of >how a suit is to be cashed, (and leaving aside proved finesses, etc.) >is there any rational reason for cashing other than top down? I don't >think so. Thus if claimer fails to specify order, it seem reasonable >to rule as if the claim statement had included "from top down." Any >other order seems irrational _given that one is claiming_. You do not believe, then, that a claim is a method of describing how the play would go in the absence of a claim? -- 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 Tue Nov 9 22:58:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 22:28:07 +1100 (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 WAA00474 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 22:27:47 +1100 (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 MAA02774 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:27:16 +0100 Message-ID: <38280517.C0C8611D@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:27:19 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Protect yourself References: <005601bf2a62$3414c040$9e5fac3e@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > London v Norway, 1999 Lederer: > > A > K62 > J1065 > QJ1032 > 72 KJ983 > AJ9854 73 > 92 AK874 > 964 A > Q10654 > Q10 > Q3 > K875 > > West North East South > Austberg Callaghan Helgemo Burn > Pass Pass 1S Pass > 2H (1) Dble 2S 3C > All pass > > (1) Alerted and explained as "five hearts and two spades" > > West led S2 (low from doubletons), ace, three (encouraging), four. > South played CQ from dummy, ace, five, six. East played AK and another > diamond. South asked again about 2H, and was told "five hearts and two > spades". Suppose he had gone one down by discarding on the third round > of diamonds, and suppose he then asked for a ruling. What would you > give him, if anything? > > David Burn > London, England I wonder where the gag is. Why not ruff the diamond high, cash two clubs, concede the heart ace, ruff a heart and claim (dummy's good)? Even if South hoped the West's distribution to be, say, 2-5-3-3 then he cannot gain anything by discarding on the third diamond. The damage was obviously caused by South's inferior line of play not by MI. Inferior? Well, I'd call it hopeless. Please, tell us, David, you didn't do it. :))) -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Nov 10 00:02:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:02:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00663 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:01:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from janus.cee.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.26.112] ident=root) by llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #4) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 11lAu4-0000v1-00; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:01:40 +0000 Received: by janus.cee.hw.ac.uk (Smail3.1.28.1 #96) id m11lAu3-0001QuC; Tue, 9 Nov 99 13:01 GMT Message-Id: Date: Tue, 9 Nov 99 13:01 GMT From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: Protect yourself To: BLML In-Reply-To: Konrad Ciborowski's message of Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:27:19 +0100 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Burn wrote: > > > > London v Norway, 1999 Lederer: > > > > A > > K62 > > J1065 > > QJ1032 > > 72 KJ983 > > AJ9854 73 > > 92 AK874 > > 964 A > > Q10654 > > Q10 > > Q3 > > K875 > > > > West North East South > > Austberg Callaghan Helgemo Burn > > Pass Pass 1S Pass > > 2H (1) Dble 2S 3C > > All pass > > > > (1) Alerted and explained as "five hearts and two spades" > > > > West led S2 (low from doubletons), ace, three (encouraging), four. > > South played CQ from dummy, ace, five, six. East played AK and another > > diamond. South asked again about 2H, and was told "five hearts and two > > spades". Suppose he had gone one down by discarding on the third round > > of diamonds, and suppose he then asked for a ruling. What would you > > give him, if anything? > > > > David Burn > > London, England [Konrad Ciborowski] > I wonder where the gag is. Why not ruff the diamond high, > cash two clubs, concede the heart ace, ruff a heart and claim > (dummy's good)? > Even if South hoped the West's distribution to be, say, > 2-5-3-3 then he cannot gain anything by discarding on the third > diamond. > The damage was obviously caused by South's inferior > line of play not by MI. Inferior? Well, I'd call it hopeless. > Please, tell us, David, you didn't do it. :))) We've led one trump, ruffed high, drawn two more trumps. Unless my artithmetic is wrong, we'll be toiling to find a 5th trump with which to ruff a heart. The smiley saves you from any stronger comment. Bearing which in mind, I'll add one of my own in case my arithmetic *is* wrong :-) [Christian Farwig] > b) Declarer got some strong clues in the play. First, East did not raise hearts > and instead opted for a 7 card fit. Second, on this level of play, the defense > made it pretty obvious that diamonds would be 5-2. Else a switch to hearts after > cashing the first diamond would be obligatory and killing. The point about the bidding is relevant but the other one confuses me. Why would a heart switch be obligatory and killing? Granted, if East is 5-3-4-1 (trumps have to be 3-1 or else the contract is stiff) E-W need to play a Nellie defence (Nellie the Elephant: trump, trump, trump). In which case, West needs two entries (heart Ace and diamond honour) to lead trumps twice. So East needs to lead hearts now and therefore West needs to have the knave or declarer has two heart tricks. To recap, *if* West has AJ of hearts *and* a diamond honour *and* exactly 2-5-3-3, then the heart switch would be killing. Doesn't seem like that makes it *obvious* that diamonds are 5-2. They might be, but "obvious", when East has twice told us that they can't be? Sorry to labour the above but with no smiley I had little choice. ;-) For what it's worth, "five hearts and two spades" means to me exactly that. The idea that it could be shorthand for "at least five hearts and at least 2 spades" doesn't impress me, though if someone not a native English speaker (as was the case) meant that I would perhaps excuse them. Which is why writing down: 5+ + 2 on a pad is so much better. Watching European championships, it always amazes me when some of the players don't use the pads provided: so many language problems would be solved. Oh, you want a decision. I'd give the declarer his contract if he discarded on the 3rd diamond and it was ruffed. --- "In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. -- Orson Welles to Joseph Cotton in The Third Man From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 00:18:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:18:39 +1100 (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 AAA00715 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:18:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.93.238] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11lAy7-0007Y5-00; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:05:51 +0000 Message-ID: <002201bf2ab3$0c400ce0$ee5dac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <005601bf2a62$3414c040$9e5fac3e@davidburn> <382804B4.1FD12DD8@omicron.comarch.pl> Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:05:06 -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 > David Burn wrote: > > > > London v Norway, 1999 Lederer: > > > > A > > K62 > > J1065 > > QJ1032 > > 72 KJ983 > > AJ9854 73 > > 92 AK874 > > 964 A > > Q10654 > > Q10 > > Q3 > > K875 > > > > West North East South > > Austberg Callaghan Helgemo Burn > > Pass Pass 1S Pass > > 2H (1) Dble 2S 3C > > All pass > > > > (1) Alerted and explained as "five hearts and two spades" > > > > West led S2 (low from doubletons), ace, three (encouraging), four. > > South played CQ from dummy, ace, five, six. East played AK and another > > diamond. South asked again about 2H, and was told "five hearts and two > > spades". Suppose he had gone one down by discarding on the third round > > of diamonds, and suppose he then asked for a ruling. What would you > > give him, if anything? > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > I wonder where the gag is. Why not ruff the diamond high, > cash two clubs, concede the heart ace, ruff a heart and claim > (dummy's good)? The gag is that after South has played a club to the ace, ruffed a diamond high, and played two more rounds of clubs, there is nothing left in the South hand with which to ruff a heart. > Even if South hoped the West's distribution to be, say, > 2-5-3-3 then he cannot gain anything by discarding on the third > diamond. Certainly he can. If West is 2-5-3-3 without the ace of hearts, then South will go down by ruffing the third diamond high (since he must play hearts before drawing trumps, and East will win the first heart and play a fourth diamond to promote West's nine of clubs). > The damage was obviously caused by South's inferior > line of play not by MI. Inferior? Well, I'd call it hopeless. > Please, tell us, David, you didn't do it. :))) I did not, as it happened (but neither, of course, did I follow your suggested line, which would have made the contract against no distribution of the outstanding cards whatever). I knew that West could not have five hearts and two spades, for Helgemo would not have bid 2S with 5-3 in the majors, so I was aware that my RHO was being economical with the truth. So I ruffed high and played a heart, from which point I could not be defeated, but I wondered afterwards to what extent I would have been supposed by a director or an appeals committee to protect myself against what was clearly misinformation? Helgemo's English is excellent; if he had wanted to tell me that West had "at least five hearts", he could have done so. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 00:49:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:49:03 +1100 (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 AAA00808 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:48:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:48:28 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA29539 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:33:47 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: careless v irrational Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:20:23 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >> K742 >> 654 >> J1032 >> 65 >> >> A3 >> 108 >> AK9854 >> AQ8 >> >> West North East South >> 1H 2D >> Pass 3D Pass 3H >> Pass 4D Pass 5D >> All pass >> >> West leads H7, East wins the jack and continues with the queen, West >> playing the 3 (consistent with a doubleton). Declarer (Boris Schapiro) >> claims, tabling his cards and saying: "I know how to play this hand. >> If the club finesse works, I make it, otherwise I go down, but if West >> has three diamonds I go down anyway." West has three small hearts and >> the singleton queen of diamonds; East has the king of clubs (in a >> 3-5-2-3 shape). Does declarer make his contract? Would he make it if >> West had three hearts and DQx? >> >> David Burn >> London, England > > For my money, he doesn't. It is not irrational, IM(H)O, to ruff >high and finesse the Q of D. There is nothing in the claim statement >suggesting that declarer will ruff low and play D from the top (don't >tell that he might ruff high and then play D from the top; this line >is clearly inferior to two others). There is a clue that declarer will ruff low and next cash from the top. He says: I make the contract if East has the king of clubs, *unless West has all remaining diamonds*. This points to declarer planning to cash from the top, finessing against East if he has all diamonds, and for that he will need to ruff the heart continuation low. Needless to say that if West had the DQ singleton and two hearts, he would go down now. I suppose Boris knew his fellows at the table and simply didn't believe the doubleton hearts in West :-) > Here is another example quite similar to the one above. > Declarer opened 4S and everyone passed. The defense cashed >the first six tricks in side suits and declarer said: "I have the >rest". His spades were, however, AKJ10xxx - xx. Yes the queen was >doubleton offside and the TD gave one more trick to the defenders - >a right decision in my view. In this case, declarer CANNOT finesse in trumps! How does he get to dummy when he has only trumps left? It is therefore still a cash out case. So if LHO is on lead at tbe moment of declarer's claim, declarer will get all tricks. If RHO is on lead, however, I will in most cases award the queen of spades to the defense. Only if RHO has the singleton queen, or LHO has the singleton queen and is not able to overruff declarer, declarer will get everything; I let declarer ruff low or high, both of which is not irrational, depending on which of the two is the wrong decision. However, if declarer ruffs the sixth trick and then has an entry to dummy with his remaining non-trump, I give one trick to the defense, unless RHO has the queen singleton or doubleton; it is impossible for declarer to make a mistake then. > I think that the "top down" guidance should only be applied >in simple cash out situations. My personal view is that if declarer >has some reasonable options (OK, normal, rational, if you insist) >then if he doesn't mention explicitly which line he will take - >he should be ruled against. The TD shouldn't assume that that he >will take the "top down" line of play; even if it happens to be >the best one. Agreed > If both cases finessing the Q of trumps is not irrational. >Thus, 5D -1 if first case, 4S -4 in the second. In the first case, finessing conflicts with declarer's statement. In the second case, finessing would produce an illegal play - declarer cannot cross to dummy to finesse. But if declarer had been able to cross to dummy, I would agree with you. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 00:57:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:57:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe20.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.124]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA00844 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:57:21 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 90543 invoked by uid 65534); 9 Nov 1999 13:56:43 -0000 Message-ID: <19991109135643.90542.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.160.44] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <199911082309.SAA27894@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000901bf2a51$05f01180$9e5fac3e@davidburn> Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:18:58 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Excellent thoughts David. I find that the claim statement has so much ambiguity and innuendo that it covers all the bases and none at the same time and what is not resolved is what card is to be played to T3. The key point being whether the claim Includes protecting against an over ruff by the Q or it Excludes protecting against an over ruff by the Q. After reconsideration [I originally concluded that it excludes ruffing with the ace] I feel that the point is in fact doubtful. For the ruling I make this bridge judgement: There is the possible refutation of the claim by asserting that first the heart is ruffed high to protect against over ruff by the Q and then the losing finesse into the Q is taken. Golly, that does sound like twisted logic doesn't it? But I think that what this means is that to require ruff high also requires the claim to be successful against the stiff Q in either hand, since it is irrational to ruff high and then not play the other high trump immediately. So for the hand in question, there are three lines [1] ruff low [2] ruff medium and [3] ruff high. The claim statement is enough to accept that dumb things are excludable, it merely is a matter of determining the outcomes. For ruff low and medium there is no over ruff. It is automatic to test trumps and when they split dummy is entered for the club play. If ruff high, it is irrational to not lay down the other honor. If the Q does not fall you are down, and if it does then trumps are pulled and the club test is made. In this instance the Q falls and the club works for 11 tricks in all lines. Da**, that Shapiro is lucky! That said, I stand on my soap box and take note of the peculiar situation illustrated here and a couple of recent threads. The critical point of the hand is reached and declarer disposes the question by a nebulous claim, leaving the matter to be resolved by the opponent's acquiescence or by the TD. My point is that declarer avoided taking a stand as to whether he was ruffing high or low which is critical to answer all the questions. I do not like it that declarer does not play the 9 and remove all doubt- or play the ace and then find the diamonds. Such points frequently are lost on the intermediate player but are unlikely to escape the master. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 7:23 PM Subject: Re: careless v irrational > K742 > 654 > J1032 > 65 > > A3 > 108 > AK9854 > AQ8 > > West North East South > 1H 2D > Pass 3D Pass 3H > Pass 4D Pass 5D > All pass > > West leads H7, East wins the jack and continues with the queen, West > playing the 3 (consistent with a doubleton). Declarer (Boris Schapiro) > claims, tabling his cards and saying: "I know how to play this hand. > If the club finesse works, I make it, otherwise I go down, but if West > has three diamonds I go down anyway." West has three small hearts and > the singleton queen of diamonds; East has the king of clubs (in a > 3-5-2-3 shape). Does declarer make his contract? > Would he make it if West had three hearts and DQx? I am inclined to believe that declarer is entitled to 10 tricks in this instance for the reasons stated above. But I would be inclined to first praise partner for having the acuity to recognize the situation and bean him if he contested. I would believe that In his heart Boris would rectify his error if he in fact would have found the losing line. > > David Burn > London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 01:19:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:19:57 +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 BAA00964 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:19:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-46.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.46]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA12792 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:19:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38281298.A9AB4054@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 13:24:56 +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: Protect yourself References: <005601bf2a62$3414c040$9e5fac3e@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > diamond. South asked again about 2H, and was told "five hearts and two > spades". Suppose he had gone one down by discarding on the third round > of diamonds, and suppose he then asked for a ruling. What would you > give him, if anything? > I would expect a player to ask in two steps, the second one being : always exactly five ? If the response is still "always", I would be inclined to rule MI. If declarer did not ask this - he was clearly aware of the problem, but the simple question does not indicate this to opponents, I would rule he had not done enought to protect himself. But in a case like this I would prefer to ask David Burn for guidance. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 01:32:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:32:03 +1100 (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 BAA01043 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:31:53 +1100 (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 PAA08674 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:31:49 +0100 Message-ID: <3828305C.80403730@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 15:31:56 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Protect yourself References: <005601bf2a62$3414c040$9e5fac3e@davidburn> <382804B4.1FD12DD8@omicron.comarch.pl> <002201bf2ab3$0c400ce0$ee5dac3e@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > David Burn wrote: > > > > > > London v Norway, 1999 Lederer: > > > > > > A > > > K62 > > > J1065 > > > QJ1032 > > > 72 KJ983 > > > AJ9854 73 > > > 92 AK874 > > > 964 A > > > Q10654 > > > Q10 > > > Q3 > > > K875 > > > > > > West North East South > > > Austberg Callaghan Helgemo Burn > > > Pass Pass 1S Pass > > > 2H (1) Dble 2S 3C > > > All pass > > > > > > (1) Alerted and explained as "five hearts and two spades" > > > > > > West led S2 (low from doubletons), ace, three (encouraging), four. > > > South played CQ from dummy, ace, five, six. East played AK and > another > > > diamond. South asked again about 2H, and was told "five hearts and > two > > > spades". Suppose he had gone one down by discarding on the third > round > > > of diamonds, and suppose he then asked for a ruling. What would > you > > > give him, if anything? > > > > > > David Burn > > > London, England > > > > I wonder where the gag is. Why not ruff the diamond high, > > cash two clubs, concede the heart ace, ruff a heart and claim > > (dummy's good)? > > The gag is that after South has played a club to the ace, ruffed a > diamond high, and played two more rounds of clubs, there is nothing > left in the South hand with which to ruff a heart. > Ouch!!! Counting to thirteen is so difficult :( I misread the problem completely. Sorry for spouting nonsense. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Nov 10 01:48:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:48:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe9.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.113]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA01119 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:48:43 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 70089 invoked by uid 65534); 9 Nov 1999 14:48:02 -0000 Message-ID: <19991109144802.70088.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.160.44] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 08:47:50 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: Martin Sinot To: 'BLML' Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 7:20 AM Subject: RE: careless v irrational > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Here is another example quite similar to the one above. > > Declarer opened 4S and everyone passed. The defense cashed > >the first six tricks in side suits and declarer said: "I have the > >rest". His spades were, however, AKJ10xxx - xx. Yes the queen was > >doubleton offside and the TD gave one more trick to the defenders - > >a right decision in my view. > > In this case, declarer CANNOT finesse in trumps! How does he get > to dummy when he has only trumps left? It is therefore still a cash > out case. So if LHO is on lead at tbe moment of declarer's claim, > declarer will get all tricks. If RHO is on lead, however, I will > in most cases award the queen of spades to the defense. Only if > RHO has the singleton queen, or LHO has the singleton queen and > is not able to overruff declarer, declarer will get everything; > I let declarer ruff low or high, both of which is not irrational, > depending on which of the two is the wrong decision. May I interject something for consideration? I would think it relevant which opponent was on lead at T7. If indeed it is LHO then as in fact the cards lie he must be endplayed to drop the Q or must be given a no lose finesse of the trump. If however it is RHO on lead, it may be considered that he lead a trump in which the finesse or drop question arises and I think it is clear how that is resolved. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > > If both cases finessing the Q of trumps is not irrational. > >Thus, 5D -1 if first case, 4S -4 in the second. > > In the first case, finessing conflicts with declarer's statement. Initially I had similar sentiments that the statement at least vaguely implied it. I quickly realized that that too much fog was present and that declarer's assertion was not conclusive enough and that failure to resolve T3 diminished declarer's leeway. > > Martin Sinot > martin@spase.nl > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 03:09:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 03:09:53 +1100 (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 DAA01521 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 03:09:32 +1100 (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 RAA24811 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:09:36 +0100 Message-ID: <38284747.BF26CF9D@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 17:09:43 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > >> > >> K742 > >> 654 > >> J1032 > >> 65 > >> > >> A3 > >> 108 > >> AK9854 > >> AQ8 > >> > >> West North East South > >> 1H 2D > >> Pass 3D Pass 3H > >> Pass 4D Pass 5D > >> All pass > >> > >> West leads H7, East wins the jack and continues with the queen, West > >> playing the 3 (consistent with a doubleton). Declarer (Boris Schapiro) > >> claims, tabling his cards and saying: "I know how to play this hand. > >> If the club finesse works, I make it, otherwise I go down, but if West > >> has three diamonds I go down anyway." West has three small hearts and > >> the singleton queen of diamonds; East has the king of clubs (in a > >> 3-5-2-3 shape). Does declarer make his contract? Would he make it if > >> West had three hearts and DQx? > >> > >> David Burn > >> London, England > > > > For my money, he doesn't. It is not irrational, IM(H)O, to ruff > >high and finesse the Q of D. There is nothing in the claim statement > >suggesting that declarer will ruff low and play D from the top (don't > >tell that he might ruff high and then play D from the top; this line > >is clearly inferior to two others). > > There is a clue that declarer will ruff low and next cash from the top. > He says: I make the contract if East has the king of clubs, *unless > West has all remaining diamonds*. This points to declarer planning to > cash from the top, finessing against East if he has all diamonds, > and for that he will need to ruff the heart continuation low. > Needless to say that if West had the DQ singleton and two hearts, > he would go down now. I suppose Boris knew his fellows at the table > and simply didn't believe the doubleton hearts in West :-) Yes, I know Schapiro's words suggest that he would ruff low then cash AKd, spade to the K, C finesse etc.- but I still rule one down. Perhaps I should loosen up but I firmly believe that it's the claimer's duty to state _explicitly_ the line he takes instead of saying that he knows how to play the hand. His further words carry some suggestions but, the way I see it, suggestion is not enough. If declarer tables his hand at the critical point and says nothing whether he is going to ruff high or low (both plays are rational and I assume that ruffing high = finessing diamonds) - I rule in favor of his opponents. I still think, however, that it's close. I've sent this problem to the two Polish best TDs. When I receive the response - I'll mail it. > > > Here is another example quite similar to the one above. > > Declarer opened 4S and everyone passed. The defense cashed > >the first six tricks in side suits and declarer said: "I have the > >rest". His spades were, however, AKJ10xxx - xx. Yes the queen was > >doubleton offside and the TD gave one more trick to the defenders - > >a right decision in my view. > > In this case, declarer CANNOT finesse in trumps! How does he get > to dummy when he has only trumps left? It is therefore still a cash > out case. So if LHO is on lead at tbe moment of declarer's claim, > declarer will get all tricks. If RHO is on lead, however, I will > in most cases award the queen of spades to the defense. Only if > RHO has the singleton queen, or LHO has the singleton queen and > is not able to overruff declarer, declarer will get everything; > I let declarer ruff low or high, both of which is not irrational, > depending on which of the two is the wrong decision. > > However, if declarer ruffs the sixth trick and then has an entry > to dummy with his remaining non-trump, I give one trick to the > defense, unless RHO has the queen singleton or doubleton; it is > impossible for declarer to make a mistake then. I have to apologize for the second time today. Spades were of course AJ10xxxx - Kx. You got my drift, however - thanks a lot. > > > I think that the "top down" guidance should only be applied > >in simple cash out situations. My personal view is that if declarer > >has some reasonable options (OK, normal, rational, if you insist) > >then if he doesn't mention explicitly which line he will take - > >he should be ruled against. The TD shouldn't assume that that he > >will take the "top down" line of play; even if it happens to be > >the best one. > > Agreed > Content. :)) > > Martin Sinot > martin@spase.nl -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Nov 10 04:03:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:03:55 +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 EAA01609 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:03:45 +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 LAA28026 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:56:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA28519 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:56:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:56:21 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911091656.LAA28519@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 > You do not believe, then, that a claim is a method of describing how > the play would go in the absence of a claim? A _claim_ is defined by L68A. You seem to be referring to a _claim statement_, which is a line of play by which one proposes to win the tricks claimed (L68C). No, I don't believe it is equivalent to how play would go in the absence of a claim. Someone else, in a message I've deleted, mentioned that the "top down rule" shouldn't apply if there is a finessing situation. In case it wasn't clear before, I agree with that. If both finessing and playing for the drop are rational lines, and claimer doesn't state one, he gets the worst outcome. (Taking account, of course, of opponents showing out, etc., which may make a line irrational.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 04:12:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:12:03 +1100 (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 EAA01638 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:11:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-224.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.224]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA29539 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:11:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006101bf2ad5$be6d54a0$e084d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:13:27 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Ian D Crorie >For what it's worth, "five hearts and two spades" means to me exactly >that. The idea that it could be shorthand for "at least five hearts >and at least 2 spades" doesn't impress me, Nor me. Especially when the question is repeated at a time when it should be obvious to players of this class that the questioner is attempting to get a count of the hand. The answer was at best disingenuous and frankly seems to be deliberately misleading. Were I not somehow persuaded otherwise, I would be strongly inclined to assess a disciplinary penalty in addition to awarding the contract. Deliberately misstating the partnership agreement, as seems possibly to have been the case here, is a serious ethical breach. I think David is being very charitable in calling it being ecomomical with the truth. -- Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 04:15:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:15:45 +1100 (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 EAA01693 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:15:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ta838649 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 03:07:06 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-138.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.138]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Caring-MailRouter V2.5 9/2039188); 10 Nov 1999 03:07:06 Message-ID: <023c01bf2b74$06d227e0$d56c868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:06:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Ian Crorie wrote a lot of accurate analysis then: >Which is why writing down: > 5+ + 2 >on a pad is so much better. Watching European championships, it always >amazes me when some of the players don't use the pads provided: so >many language problems would be solved. So true. At WBF events too. I've never seen a TD cruising the floor and fining players for spoken explanations behind screens. Maybe that's due to my inexperience? > >Oh, you want a decision. I'd give the declarer his contract if he >discarded on the 3rd diamond and it was ruffed. > That's not what I'd do. My answer is that David Burn's posting provides insufficient information to provide a ruling. I'd try to establish whether East's explanation was correct and West's call was a mild *psyche*. I'd ask EW about documentation of their agreements. As I can't do this on BLML, I'm sustituting the following guesswork about what happened. Based on my personal experience partnering a Norwegian international and being told about Norwegian bidding style, West's original pass may have been anti-systemic, especially if non-vul. My GUESS is that systemically West must either open this hand or not respond 2H to 1S. This makes the explanation correct, but not necessarily verifiably correct. It is possible that EW had extensive system notes to confirm that the explanation was correct, but we do not know. In the absence of this possible information, and given that real names are involved, to rule against EW seems unjust to me. IMO Christian Farwig's explanation that *5 hearts* means *5 plus hearts* would be OK for the first explanation, but not OK in the setting of the second explanation. However I don't think East meant this; I guess that his explanation was correct, so South is not entitled to score adjustment. In the unlikely (IMO) case that the explanation was incorrect, I too would adjust to 3C making. However, based on my personal experience, I guess that in actuality, which may be unverifiable, the explanation was actually correct and that the 2H bid was an unexpected departure from system. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 04:18:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:18:48 +1100 (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 EAA01715 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:18:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from pacs11a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.171.173] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11lEuN-0003l8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:18:16 -0800 Message-ID: <01f901bf2ad6$44342820$adab93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:01:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Marvin L. French ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 09 November 1999 02:51 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >Who is to say that he was wrong? > >David Burn >London, England > +=+ Oh, I did, David, I did. And to be fair, he had the grace to say, 'oh yes it was wrong, but at the time....' (or words to this effect) and as it was communication at WBF Committee level I think I am entitled to regard this as his 'official' position. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 04:50:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:50:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from t21mta01-app.talk21.com (mta01.talk21.com [62.172.192.171]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01797 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:50:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([62.6.113.204]) by t21mta01-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116) with SMTP id <19991109175125.XYBR29994.t21mta01-app.talk21.com@cmartin> for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:51:25 +0000 Message-ID: <00f101bf2ada$e785b580$cc71063e@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Protect yourself Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:49:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: SNIP > >I did not, as it happened (but neither, of course, did I follow your >suggested line, which would have made the contract against no >distribution of the outstanding cards whatever). I knew that West >could not have five hearts and two spades, for Helgemo would not have >bid 2S with 5-3 in the majors, so I was aware that my RHO was being >economical with the truth. ######## This is a bit hard on Helgemo. Plenty of players carelessly say "showing 5H & 2S" when they mean 5+H & 2+S or 5+H & 2S and they are not deliberately lying or intending to mislead the questioner. Also, how do you *know* that this was not an accurate disclosure of their system (which I agree is unlikely)? Did their CC provide some insight? ######## >So I ruffed high and played a heart, from >which point I could not be defeated, but I wondered afterwards to what >extent I would have been supposed by a director or an appeals >committee to protect myself against what was clearly misinformation? >Helgemo's English is excellent; if he had wanted to tell me that West >had "at least five hearts", he could have done so. > ######### Had I been asked to rule at the time, I would have first established exactly what was said in answer to the questions, then what the systemic agreement actually was and what was written on the CC. Finally I would have been interested to know if you looked at the CC or were suspicious of the answers that you had received and, if so, why? I would then have adopted a similar approach to that used in the case of failure to alert as outlined in OB 5.5.1 which states: "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 the opportunity to ask without putting your side's interests at risk." In this case, you had already asked twice and received the same answer. IMO, it is unreasonable to expect you to make any further enquiries. Therefore, as I judge that it is only likely and not manifestly obvious that this explanation must be deficient, even to players at this level, I would have adjusted the score if you had gone down on any reasonable line that assumed West had exactly five hearts. I have also discussed this with Richard Fleet who was the on-site referee and he confirmed to me that he was in agreement with the above. ########## David Martin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 05:18:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 05:18:22 +1100 (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 FAA01903 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 05:18:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id xa839043 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:17:35 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-138.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.138]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Ultra-Violet-MailRouter V2.5 9/2043321); 10 Nov 1999 04:17:35 Message-ID: <030901bf2b7d$df6e08e0$d56c868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 05:17:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Burn wrote: >I leave you with a case from this year's Lederer tournament >(a top invitational event here in London; all players supposedly of >international class): > > K742 > 654 > J1032 > 65 > > A3 > 108 > AK9854 > AQ8 > >West North East South > 1H 2D >Pass 3D Pass 3H >Pass 4D Pass 5D >All pass > >West leads H7, East wins the jack and continues with the queen, West >playing the 3 (consistent with a doubleton). Declarer (Boris Schapiro) >claims, tabling his cards and saying: "I know how to play this hand. >If the club finesse works, I make it, otherwise I go down, but if West >has three diamonds I go down anyway." West has three small hearts and >the singleton queen of diamonds; East has the king of clubs (in a >3-5-2-3 shape). Does declarer make his contract? Would he make it if >West had three hearts and DQx? > I rule that he makes his contract. Declarer's last nine words make his intentions clear enough to me. If West had have had two hearts and a diamond higher than the four, I'd rule *down one*. Last time in this thread I sat on the fence. Not this time. His claim statement was clear enough; it seems that the overruff possibility hadn't occurred to him when he claimed. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 06:44:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 06:44:21 +1100 (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 GAA02134 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 06:44:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.147.2] (mu-147002.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.147.2]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id WQY9PQKY; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:44:02 -0600 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:52:53 -0600 To: bridgelaws From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: careless v irrational Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm on David's side of this, if I understand his views. Irrational play is something beyond the simple careless. Irrational is playing a long side suit before pulling trumps when there is absolutely no reason for it. My personal experience has been that I and many others make plays that are "irrational" by the standard of the top-down group. My claims are better than my plays, mostly because I can't call "diamond" from 97 in dummy (9 good, 8 known to be out and stiff) or pull the wrong card out of my hand. (The "diamond" cost me my first set in a doubled weak 1NT.) It seems to me that there is no good reason to assume top down play of cards in a suit. Carelessness of one sort or another goes on all the time. Calling "diamond" from dummy says "play the lowest" and I can't see why an incomplete claim should not be held to the same low standard. It would soon lead to more complete statements. On the other hand, this would eliminate claims like one I saw last night, 8 spade cards with all the tops but a potential loser to a spot like the 6 if played bottom up. "I have all the spades ..." with the spades known to divide. (Even nicer are the claims of some good players against good players, just turning the hand face up. Anyone can see the little cards going under the big ones and the long cards setting up.) Well, most people can see it. Opponents at the club level sometimes say, "Let's just play it out!" which means they just don't see how the stated line of play will go. This from the bottom tier of players, mostly. For them, a calim in the form of a demonstration is needed. Difficulty with articulating a claim leads some players to play the hand out, even when they know exactly what they are going to do and know that it will work. Some of them will show the hand as they play it out to avoid oppponents worrying about what to discard on the stream of winners. This is technically a claim, but the statement is practical demonstration. Robert E. Harris Chemistry Department University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 07:10:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 07:10:03 +1100 (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 HAA02230 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 07:09:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.59.160] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11lHZk-0004CK-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:09:08 +0000 Message-ID: <001101bf2aee$2c14b1c0$a03bac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <006101bf2ad5$be6d54a0$e084d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:08:20 -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 Craig wrote: > Nor me. Especially when the question is repeated at a time when it should be > obvious to players of this class that the questioner is attempting to get a > count of the hand. The answer was at best disingenuous and frankly seems to > be deliberately misleading. Were I not somehow persuaded otherwise, I would > be strongly inclined to assess a disciplinary penalty in addition to > awarding the contract. Deliberately misstating the partnership agreement, as > seems possibly to have been the case here, is a serious ethical breach. I > think David is being very charitable in calling it being ecomomical with the > truth. I should hasten to emphasise that there was no actual problem. I knew Austberg didn't have two spades and five hearts, because Helgemo would not have bid 2S with 5-2 in the majors. I am pretty sure that Geir was just trying to make sure I knew about the unusual part of his agreement (two spades); he may not have felt that he needed to say "five plus hearts" since that would be normal. He may also have felt that his partner could not have six hearts and not have opened some kind of pre-empt, and be trying to make sure that I had that inference too. I am certain that he had no intention of misleading me, deliberately or otherwise; he was just trying to be helpful whilst (unfortunately) leaving out what might have proved a significant point of his explanation. I didn't need to look at CCS or anything else; I knew what the hand was, but the explanation seemed at variance with that knowledge. At the table I did, in fact, ruff the third diamonds high and play a heart, the obvious thing to do. But I was vaguely conscious at the time that if I had taken my eye off the ball as a result of the words "five hearts and two spades", then the case (if I brought one) might have to be judged on the extent to which players are supposed to protect themselves against damage from a wrong explanation; this has always been an uncertain area of the Laws for me in my role as referee. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 08:15:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:15:52 +1100 (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 IAA02503 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:15:42 +1100 (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 <19991109211530.BQII27673.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:15:30 -0800 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: NABC Chicago casebook online for ACBL members Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:13:16 -0800 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: <01c501bf2717$f5da03a0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > The NABC Appeals casebooks' printing could perhaps be omitted, with public > access to them on the internet, but downloading and printing would be such > a bother that I hope the ACBL continues to publish them in book form. If > it is costing them more than they get from sales, they could do a lot > better in promoting them. Most ACBL TDs I talk to are not aware of the > casebooks, which should be a part of their continuing education. I doubt > very much that publishing them publicly on the ACBL web site would have a > significant effect on profits from book sales. Are overseas sales that > great? I suspect there is another reason for keeping them semi-private, > but y'all will have to guess what that is. > It's a pile of stuff to print! And I can't read anything of that scope on my screen (just a personal limitation - I have to have printed copy) I asked Jim Miller how much it cost to print the current regulations book, which, if anything is a little larger than the casebooks. He said about $4. I fully support it being available in both forms. Every TD that is at the Nationals (working) just has to stop by Patty's office and they can get a casebook. She has given out a large pile over the years. I have been told that it is a requirement that every director above a certain level (I think if they can run a Sectional that is high enough, but I am just guessing) is scheduled for at least one NABC per year. I guess if TD's really want the casebooks a good idea would be to talk to the Big Boss Director (Gary). I think ACBL charges too much for the casebook. I think they should charge $5 and recover their printing costs. Unfortunately they are trying to recover other costs with the books. Too bad. They also won't give book dealers a deal (one BOD member friend of mine was unaware that this was what was happening) so dealers would have to sell them for about $20 and they sure aren't worth that much! Linda From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 08:33:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:33:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from steve.une.edu.au (steve.une.edu.au [129.180.49.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA02593 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:33:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by steve.une.edu.au (5.65v4.0/1.1.10.5/09Mar98-0157PM) id AA30332; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:33:20 +1100 From: Bruce Message-Id: <9911092133.AA30332@steve.une.edu.au> Subject: free finesse To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:33:19 +1100 (EST) 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 I was asked this question last night although the incident happened elsewhere. South is in 4H having opened 1H (showing at least 5 hearts), dummy holds H K9x and there are sufficient tricks to make the contract without any trouble regardless of the location of the HQ. South holds AJ10xx in hearts. The opening lead is won by South who plays a heart to the king and then the H9. East follows low and South plays a diamond(!), West (foolishly) plays a low heart and South's incorrect play is noted. South has now established that West does not have Qx. Now as South must play a heart West can withdraw the card played and play a different card. At this stage West tells South that with unauthorised information they should play the King. (Having started with only 2 hearts West must play the same card) Law 16 states that the offending pair cannot make any play that takes advantage of the UI. I expect that a low heart would be the natural play (to pick up 4 to the Q on the right) and that appears to be why the 9 was led. I do not believe that South is constrained to play any card. Comments please. Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 09:49:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:49:46 +1100 (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 JAA02916 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:49:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.90] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11lK4u-00069K-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 22:49:28 +0000 Message-ID: <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 22:47:49 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: 09 November 1999 05:13 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >At 02:03 AM 11/9/99 -0000, David B wrote: > >>It is blindingly obvious from the wording of the Laws that one is not >permitted to ask >>questions solely for the purpose of ensuring that partner is able to >>share in your knowledge of the enemy methods. > >"Blindingly obvious??" Well certainly that makes debate quite unnecessary. >How very convenient! > +=+ I think "debate" a misnomer for the extended philosophical implausibility that you (Michael) import at times into, and peddle within, the bridge world. No-one seems to know whether you believe in your own wares, or whether - as is suggested to me - you simply enjoy the sales talk. If it is the former then I fear you are not of this world and should be left in outer darkness. Personally I diagnose you as a merchandiser in shoddy, who enjoys living by his wits in our village (so that the alleged 'patience' on my part is more properly to be seen as the amused tolerance that is displayed towards a wayward favourite child who persists in being provocative). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > . Is it permitted to ask questions with the >dual purpose of informing myself and >partner? >And is it possible that it is your own >prejudgement of the question, rather >than the wording, which has blinded you? > +=+ A player is not required to find h(**) own answer. If (s)he wishes to play, the authorities who are appointed to the task will - patiently - explain h(**) duties under its rules. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 09:57:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:57:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f85.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA02948 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:57:08 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 34069 invoked by uid 0); 9 Nov 1999 22:56:30 -0000 Message-ID: <19991109225630.34068.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:56:29 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 22:56:29 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson [snip my "alert procedure" suggestion] > If you keep this really simple, then maybe. But will it happen? > Why not? I know creeping featuritis is in nature of bureaucracy, especially the ACBL bureaucracy. But: 1. Decide what players are expected to be familiar with (not know, just have seen often enough to recognize the occasion). 2. Create a card that has those options available as checkboxes, radioboxes or simple range statements. 3. Alert anything else conventional, or bids that are "checkbox plus" (EHAA Extended Stayman, or "transfers" that could also be relays, for example). 4. Repeat 1. and 2. every few years. should be able to be done. Unfortunately, 1. and 2. would be done by committee, and we all know how the camel came about. Frankly I would be happy if we had an Alert procedure that I could explain to any of the members of that "very weak club" you're going to. Remember, we have to use the ACBL alert procedure even at the "very weak club" I play in - where half the field doesn't realize that their takeout double == 13+ any distribution is alertable. I've made it a point to ask even if it is not alerted. More frankly, I'd be happy if my opponents *could* explain their Alerted calls, and we'll work on do later (1C! - "could be short." "How short?" "I don't know. Could be short." I had one memorable day when I faced, in the 0-100 MP event, 5 successive Precision pairs. All of whom opened 1D at my table, and only one of whom could tell me that it was 2+ - they didn't even know themselves!). > Why do you say "tournament players"? One of my main worries about >alerting is club players. I am probably excepting novice games. I expect that it would be nice if novices "Playing up" had a way of marking "please be nice to me". Basically, there are 3 (possibly intersecting) sets of duplicate bridge players - those that want to play serious tournament-style, 100-pages of (hypothetical or actual) system notes bridge; people that want to enjoy a nice quiet afternoon/evening; and newbies who haven't played enough duplicate bridge to know which group they belong in. (There are also those who would like tournament bridge to be similar to money-bridge; these mostly want all barriers to having their exquisite card-play skills shine go away. But that's a rant for another day.) I often think that bridge would be served very well by splitting the first two groups as completely as possible, and letting the each member of the third graduate to their preferred one. Oh, and making the "serious" players realize that trash-talking (rudeness, intimidation, whatever) is a negative-return option, even in the "serious" games. I don't care, really, what rules we make for the "nice quiet evening" people (though all the ACBL's attempts seem to go up against the "We want fewer conventions! Oh, as long as my pet ones are allowed" problem). I won't play in it, and I can adjudicate based on any set of rules that I am told to. And I think my suggestion is adequate for the "serious" people. >Tonight I shall go and play in a very weak >club. I shall have two perfectly filled in CCs [thanks to Lee >Edwards]. We all thank Lee Edwards (except when I try to clear out a line of the ACBL card that I don't use, and xxxxxx up another line I do use). His program's handwriting is *much* better than mine. >I play some very strange methods. I believe they are better than >standard methods, but the one thing I do not want to do is to gain >because opponents do not realise I am playing them. So what do I do? > > Well, I shall make the CCs clearly available. Most pairs will >take no >notice and ignore them. I shall point out the basis of our >system at the >start of the round. > You are going beyond the call of duty here, as I would expect you to. Is the second sentence not the opponents' responsibility according to the OB? (I do find it interesting that the ACBL does not have such a requirement. Grumble. It does have the "Players are expected to be familiar with a range of systems, [4 and 5-card majors w/ or w/o 2/1GF, weak and strong NTs, 1C, 2C, and 2x being forcing strong openings]. Anything else should be prealerted." section.) [more correct, ethical, and wonderful behaviour snipped]. > None of this is worth very much. they would not ask questions >without >someone telling them to, and they will not read the CC. What >else, can I >do, tell them to ask? **Exactly !!** I shall alert very >carefully and >clearly, which tells them to ask - and that is the one >thing that is >likely to get them to realise that a 1NT overcall over >1S is not a strong >balanced hand. > Is it completely describable with numbers, suits, and a "through range"? I know any of the conventional 1NT overcalls I play are not - therefore I will also alert. I will also alert Bergen raises, 3C shape-ask after 1NT-2D(F.Stayman)-2NT, lead-avoiding doubles, 2C scramble after 1NTx, and so on. But is there a need to muddy the air/pass UI when 99.9% of people either play 2D as natural with diamonds or standard 11-15, 5H+4S Flannery? (I realize this does not apply to the ROW). Is there a need to alert 1C opening on 4=4=3=2, when there's a clear check box for 1D=4+, 1C=2+, and possibly inure the weak opponents out of caring, until they're eaten by the Strong Club pair? Is there a need to say anything over 1NT-2D if it's one of the two common meanings that 99% of the people play? If it's available to the opponents in CC form, I don't think so. If it requires any english parsing at all, then there is a chance of misinterpretation - therefore alerted. I don't expect it would be any harder to get people to look at CCs than it did to get them to use bidding boxes ("But they're so confusing. We'll never get people to not use spoken bidding."). > The methods you espouse may work quite well. But please remember >club >players: I think simple alerting is best for them. Remember how >difficult it is to enforce CC regs: can you do it in clubs? > Why is it difficult to enforce CC regs? Because no-one has done it, and it has been let slide for so long that it is obvious that the administration doesn't care. Much as I dislike ZT (I would much prefer Very Low T. I also believe it is being applied incorrectly, given the response to the 2 times I have attempted to have it enforced. Maybe I was being too subtle), games where it is applied are much nicer than they were a year ago. All it took was a statement at the beginning of every session for a year that breaches of the proprieties would be penalized (ok, they didn't say that, but that's the TD's translation). And while the EBU have got it the way you think is right (strange, that :-), club players on this side of the Pond currently have to deal with much more complicated alert procedures than what I'm suggesting. And they fail. I've had several people complain to me about it. > Your suggestion for 2C in response to 1NT sounds fine, but ..... > > Our alerting rules are three, with *no* exceptions. You are >suggesting an exception. > Hey, nothing's perfect. Nor am I suggesting anything - I'm just pointing out that in this one case, the EBU alerting regs are worse than useless. One case, that comes up one time in 1000 or so (maybe even one time in 10 000) - that's better than anything I've ever written, in english or C. And you could make it 4 rules - include "Despite 3., natural calls that are unexpected because the overwhelmingly prevalent meaning is conventional (not merely a treatment) are not alertable." That would get 1C-2C natural, too. I don't think the work's worth it, really. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 10:02:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:02:17 +1100 (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 KAA02981 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:02:08 +1100 (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 SAA28736 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:00:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991109175753.0084f4a0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 17:57:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: free finesse In-Reply-To: <9911092133.AA30332@steve.une.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:33 AM 11/10/99 +1100, Bruce wrote: > >I was asked this question last night although the incident happened >elsewhere. > >South is in 4H having opened 1H (showing at least 5 hearts), >dummy holds H K9x and there are sufficient tricks to make the contract >without any trouble regardless of the location of the HQ. >South holds AJ10xx in hearts. > >The opening lead is won by South who plays a heart to the king and then >the H9. East follows low and South plays a diamond(!), West >(foolishly) plays a low heart and South's incorrect play is noted. >South has now established that West does not have Qx. This is the Alcatraz Coup, is it not? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 10:14:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:14:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f160.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA03034 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:14:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 27176 invoked by uid 0); 9 Nov 1999 23:13:25 -0000 Message-ID: <19991109231325.27175.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 09 Nov 1999 15:13:24 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 23:13:24 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" > > David Burn wrote: [hand snipped - West has 2 spades and 6 hearts] > > > > > > West North East South > > > Austberg Callaghan Helgemo Burn > > > Pass Pass 1S Pass > > > 2H (1) Dble 2S 3C > > > All pass > > > > > > (1) Alerted and explained as "five hearts and two spades" > > > > > > South asked again about 2H, and was told "five hearts and > > >two spades". Suppose he had gone one down by discarding on the > > >third round of diamonds, and suppose he then asked for a ruling. > > > >What would you give him, if anything? [play lines snipped] >I knew that West >could not have five hearts and two spades, for Helgemo would not have >bid 2S with 5-3 in the majors, so I was aware that my RHO was being >economical with the truth. So I ruffed high and played a heart, from >which point I could not be defeated, but I wondered afterwards to >what >extent I would have been supposed by a director or an appeals >committee to protect myself against what was clearly misinformation? >Helgemo's English is excellent; if he had wanted to tell me that West >had "at least five hearts", he could have done so. As others have said, "5 hearts" tends to be synonymous with "at least 5 hearts", unless context makes it obvious otherwise (i.e. 2 spades, here, almost certainly means exactly 2 spades). I do try to ensure that when it's not obvious, I make it clear (i.e. Raptor NT - (1H)-1NT! is "10-15, exactly 4 spades, longer minor"). Whether or not this is a good thing is a debatable point - I will admit it is a bit of a shock when the Flannery pair opens 2D with 4=6=x=x (once even 4-7-2-0) and explains as "4 spades, 5 hearts, 10-15". Also as others have said, it would depend on their actual agreement, as you know better than I, likely :-). If I were thinking at the table, I'd likely rule against you, and in favour of [insert Life Novice here], provided it really was ME, not misbid (or non-CPU'ed deviation). I'd probably rule in favour of anyone not clearly at the level where that amount of counting would be "abnormal" (whatever the list ends up concluding that means). What can I say? I'm predictable. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 10:44:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:44:29 +1100 (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 KAA03117 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:44:10 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA28351 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:43:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:43 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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: > > There is a Law which is ambiguous [since you and one other read it to > mean different things]. > > An authority who has a right to interpret wherever you are playing > bridge makes the interpretation that disagrees with yours. > > Do you now believe you have a right to follow your interpretation > still? Yes. I see interpretations as analogous to case law. They set a degree of precedent but where circumstances differ a new interpretation becomes necessary. Were it to come before a judge (as it were) who ruled the new circumstances sufficiently similar to the previous case that the precedent held I would expect to be found guilty (I would not expect to have my ethics questioned). > Quango says he would be interested in the answer to this question, as > against answers that say this is not the actual position. Despite Quango's lack of interest I would suggest that the apparent lack of a proper legal acknowledgement of the WBFLC authority within the laws together with the, again apparent, absence of effective dissemination mitigate against its right to issue binding interpretations. I recognise, for instance, the right of the EBU to issue a *regulation* forbidding (or permitting) asking for partner's benefit - whether blanket or competition specific. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 11:23:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:23:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03264 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:23:51 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id dTWYa11978 (4221); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:23:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.646a6e9d.255a14ef@aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:23:11 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: msd@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 11/8/99 9:44:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: > Please understand that nobody, on either side of this issue, claims the > right to violate the Laws. But some of us are less clear about our > obligation to hew to an interpretation offered by the WBF LC, especially > when that interpretation is belied by one of the pre-eminent authorities in > the field. > Come'on Mike. Your arguments don't hold water. All that you are being told is that the Law says "X" and you are telling the world that to YOU the Law says "Y." I'd hate to run an organization, a country, or even a bridge community where there is no difinitive answer to what the Law "SAYS." You are proposing the anarchy of individual interpretations of Laws to fit your own pet beliefs. No way, man. If you have any doubt that Edgar was self--serving in his arguments on this subject, then you probably also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Good luck. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 11:31:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:31:11 +1100 (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 LAA03296 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:31:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg8r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.65.27]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA14004 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:30:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991109180212.006acf70@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 18:02:12 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <000b01bf2a97$0fabaa40$2e2d63c3@davidburn> References: <3.0.1.32.19991107233318.013236b0@pop.mindspring.com> <004e01bf2a1b$b0396be0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991108231620.0130e5c4@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:42 AM 11/9/99 -0000, David B wrote: >Michael wrote: > >> >It is blindingly obvious from the wording of the Laws that one is >not >> >permitted to ask >> >questions solely for the purpose of ensuring that partner is able >to >> >share in your knowledge of the enemy methods. >> >> "Blindingly obvious??" Well certainly that makes debate quite >unnecessary. >> How very convenient! > >Quite so. This debate is one of the more pointless and unnecessary >ones with which this list has managed to concern itself. And my >patience, unlike Grattan's, is very far from inexhaustible. I hope you will accept my thanks for at least having the decency to advance an argument. Your prior post was more in the vein of bluster than of debate. Your arguments are certainly not without merit, but they are far from so convincing that your interpretation can fairly be described as "blindingly obvious". Indeed, the obviousness of this interpretation is belied by the perceived need on the part of the WBF LC to issue the clairification at all. Was there an overwhelming clamor from bridge jurists demanding that this thorny adjudicatory issue be cleared up? I doubt it very seriously. Were there notable appeals cases in recent competitive events which raised the question to such prominence that the LC felt compelled to act? Not to the best of my (limited) knowledge. The timing of this dictum is curious. My ***THEORY*** (and I feel certain it will be corrected) is that the LC had nursed a quiet resentment against what many regarded as errancy by their most prominent member for quite a long time, but were reluctant to issue what might have been seen as a public rebuke of Kaplan during his lifetime. A decent interval has passed, and so now that old score can be put to rest. ***THEORY*** I hope that everyone concerned (you know who you are) understands this as the rankest speculation by someone with NO FACTS WHATSOEVER to back it up, other than those which have been publicly discussed in this forum. Perhaps others with actual knowledge of the events and personalities will feel inclined to enlighten us on the real genesis of this particular proclamation. >> But humor me, please. Which part of L73B1 refers, either directly or >> obliquely, to the concept of "purpose"? > >The Law itself does not contain the word "purpose". But the Law refers >to "communication", which I think it reasonable to regard as a >purposeful activity. It absolutely _is_ reasonable to regard it this way. And it is equally reasonable to regard communication as an activity which, like many others, may or not be purposeful. If you like, I can provide dozens of examples of this sort of usage from everyday life. The problem is that when we choose an interpretation (and it is a choice, not forced or "blindingly obvious") which depends fundamentally on intention, we interject into the Laws an issue which has been wisely avoided throughout. Law 16 has been carefully crafted to avoid the problem of intentionality. Similarly for L73F2, among numerous others. This is a well-established principle with deep and broad roots in the Laws. And for very good reason. David S has frequently accused me of undue cynicism about my fellow bridge players. Actually, I think most players are honorable and intent on playing according to the Laws (although many could do with a more thorough grounding in what the Laws actually say). But bridge players are by no means uniform in their integrity. If they were, we wouldn't need the vast and complex legal structure which fascinates us so. We could simply say "Don't take advantage of UI" or "Don't hesitate so as to deceive the opponents", and that would be that. But because not all players can be relied upon to behave honorably, we have this sytem of Laws, complete with more or less clear, objective standards for evaluating compliance. An interpretation (or an actual Law, should it come to that) which relies wholly upon voluntary compliance is, in this context, mostly irrelevant. It is unnecessary, it puts honest players at a disadvantage to those who would transgress with no fear of consequences, and it is contrary to an important bridge value. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 11:33:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:33:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03318 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:33:22 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id vAEJa19121 (4221); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:32:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.c1acec2c.255a1726@aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:32:38 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/9/99 6:48:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk writes: > Despite Quango's lack of interest I would suggest that the apparent lack > of a proper legal acknowledgement of the WBFLC authority within the laws > together with the, again apparent, absence of effective dissemination > mitigate against its right to issue binding interpretations. > Being an American English speaker/reader, I had to read this 4 times before I could decipher it. If you don't think that the WBF LC interpretations are binding on WBF tournaments, and on all those Zones who look to WBF LC for guidance and adhere to the WBF charter then you ain't on my frequency. If you think that Zones and NCBOs have the right to establish their own interpretations of the Laws, (i.e. ACBL and some of the EBL NCBOs) then you are in tepid waters. If you believe that an individual TD of any NCBO or Zone has the right to interpret what he personally thinks English means and apply that as Law, then you are in outer space. Have a nice trip. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 11:46:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:46:50 +1100 (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 LAA03357 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:46:41 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 3RMPCGgco_ (4221); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:45:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.57fff32b.255a1a3e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:45:50 EST Subject: Re: Protect yourself To: Dburn@btinternet.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 11/9/99 3:12:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, Dburn@btinternet.com writes: > At the table I did, in fact, ruff the third diamonds high and play a > heart, the obvious thing to do. But I was vaguely conscious at the > time that if I had taken my eye off the ball as a result of the words > "five hearts and two spades", then the case (if I brought one) might > have to be judged on the extent to which players are supposed to > protect themselves against damage from a wrong explanation; this has > always been an uncertain area of the Laws for me in my role as > referee. There you go again, David. Expecting bridge players to playthe game rather than the "Rules." Bravo!!!!! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 12:57:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:00:15 +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 MAA03422 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:00:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp236-16.worldonline.nl [195.241.236.16]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA12038; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:59:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003201bf2b16$f6b81fc0$10ecf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: free finesse Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:59:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 08:33 AM 11/10/99 +1100, Bruce wrote: >> >>I was asked this question last night although the incident happened >>elsewhere. >> >>South is in 4H having opened 1H (showing at least 5 hearts), >>dummy holds H K9x and there are sufficient tricks to make the contract >>without any trouble regardless of the location of the HQ. >>South holds AJ10xx in hearts. >> >>The opening lead is won by South who plays a heart to the king and then >>the H9. East follows low and South plays a diamond(!), West >>(foolishly) plays a low heart and South's incorrect play is noted. >>South has now established that West does not have Qx. > >This is the Alcatraz Coup, is it not? > Indeed it is. If I remember correctly, we may invoke L16C or L72B1 and adjust the score when an Alcatraz Coup has to be countered. Jac From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 13:08:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:08:04 +1100 (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 NAA03631 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:07:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveimh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.209]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA07192 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:07:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991109210504.013244a8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:05:04 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <0.646a6e9d.255a14ef@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:23 PM 11/9/99 EST, Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 11/8/99 9:44:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, >msd@mindspring.com writes: > >> Please understand that nobody, on either side of this issue, claims the >> right to violate the Laws. But some of us are less clear about our >> obligation to hew to an interpretation offered by the WBF LC, especially >> when that interpretation is belied by one of the pre-eminent authorities in >> the field. >> > >Come'on Mike. Your arguments don't hold water. All that you are being told >is that the Law says "X" and you are telling the world that to YOU the Law >says "Y." I'd hate to run an organization, a country, or even a bridge >community where there is no difinitive answer to what the Law "SAYS." You are >proposing the anarchy of individual interpretations of Laws to fit your own >pet beliefs. In general, I have to agree with you. Certainly it is unacceptable to have a system in which everyone decides for himself what the Laws say and how he will behave. Laws should provide uniform, coherent, _objective_ standards of behavior and sanctions for those who transgress. Which is exactly the point, of course. The WBF LC interpretation of L73B1 doesn't meet those criteria. Its supporters, lacking any real alternative, leave the enforcement to the consciences of the players. And that invites precisely the anarchy you have accused me of promoting. > If you have any doubt that Edgar was self--serving in his arguments on this subject, then >you probably also believe in Santa Claus Never had the pleasure of meeting either of these distinguished individuals. I have no opinion on Kaplan's motivation. I have only made three observations in this respect: that he was, in his lifetime, widely regarded as one of the (or perhaps, the) world's foremost authorities on the Laws; that he publicly advocated (and never publicly retreated from) the viewpoint I have defended; and that I find his arguments, whatever his motivation, to have been well-reasoned, cogent, and compelling. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 13:08:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:08:26 +1100 (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 NAA03637 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:08:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveimh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.209]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA13392 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:07:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 20:41:28 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:47 PM 11/9/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I think "debate" a misnomer for the > extended philosophical implausibility > that you (Michael) import at times into, > and peddle within, the bridge world. > No-one seems to know whether you > believe in your own wares, or whether > - as is suggested to me - you simply > enjoy the sales talk. If it is the former > then I fear you are not of this world > and should be left in outer darkness. > Personally I diagnose you as a > merchandiser in shoddy, who enjoys > living by his wits in our village (so that > the alleged 'patience' on my part is > more properly to be seen as the > amused tolerance that is displayed > towards a wayward favourite child > who persists in being provocative). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ As I have communicated to you in private, I have always been grateful for your willingness to discourse with me, especially considering my total lack of credentials of any sort. This is so even when, as in the present case, your remarks are considerably less than flattering. Do I enjoy these debates? I hope that the answer is obvious from the tone of my posts, and I make no apologies for doing so. I trust I am not alone in gaining satisfaction from these exchanges. And it is undeniable that I am occasionally given to rhetorical excess, which I sometimes have reason to regret. But I would plead with you not to mistake either my playfulness or my overblown style for a lack of seriousness or conviction. In this case as in others on which we have disagreed (and as well on some on which we have agreed), I have fundamentally spoken from a genuine commitment to the positions I have advanced. I have been willing to acknowledge my errors on a number of occasions, and to apologize in those instances where I have given personal offense. Apparently you are so deeply wedded to the correctness of your position in this case that it must seem inconceivable to you for a serious person to take a contrary view. How else to explain your remarks which have ranged from disdainful ("specious...utterly to be disregarded") to condescending ("wayward favourite child") to downright offensive ("merchandiser in shoddy")? I'm not asking you to admit that you are, or even could possibly be, wrong. But you have refused even to acknowledge that serious, qualified people (that is, other than me) have doubts about your interpretation. Your great and good friend took a strong public stance on the issue which he _never retracted_. The editor of one of the world's leading bridge journals disagrees with your view. In our own forum, Jesper, Tim, and Steve have all offered at least qualified support for the arguments I have advanced. Are they all "merchandisers in shoddy"? Are they all merely "self-serving" (Kojak's description of Kaplan's arguments)? Ad hominem attacks notwithstanding, these folks perceive real arguments for a different interpretation. The implicit suggestion that it is somehow inappropriate for all of us little people to challenge the WBF LC othodoxy has about it the faintly repellent odor of monarchism. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 15:13:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:13:30 +1100 (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 PAA03966 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:13:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa919144 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:12:45 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-108-72.tmns.net.au ([139.134.108.72]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sea-Worthy-MailRouter V2.5 17/2462417); 10 Nov 1999 14:12:45 Message-ID: <015601bf2bd1$044d5780$285f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:12:10 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Farebrother wrote: >As others have said, "5 hearts" tends to be synonymous with "at least >5 hearts", unless context makes it obvious otherwise.............. >I will admit it is a bit of a shock when the Flannery pair >opens 2D with 4=6=x=x (once even 4-7-2-0) and explains as >"4 spades, 5 hearts, 10-15". This explanation of "4 spades, 5 hearts" infers that Flannery is bid on shapes such as 5512, 4522 and 4612, but not on 5422. There's nothing in the context of the Flannery pair's explanation to make it obvious that one doesn't Flannery with 5512 shape. I'd prefer to say "4 spades, 5 or more hearts". Many other BLML posters take the opposite view that because "4 spades, 5 hearts" is common practice in some parts of the world, we should condone it. >What can I say? I'm predictable. > >Michael. I'm grateful. Flannery was an excellent example to choose because the use of the same words to describe opener's spade and heart holdings is very slack, tending towards diabolical IMO. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 15:20:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:20:52 +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 PAA03990 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:20:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:19:23 -0800 Message-ID: <012501bf2b32$c3ecd2e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0.c1acec2c.255a1726@aol.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:17:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: > In a message dated 11/9/99 6:48:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, > twm@cix.compulink.co.uk writes: > > > Despite Quango's lack of interest I would suggest that the apparent lack > > of a proper legal acknowledgement of the WBFLC authority within the laws > > together with the, again apparent, absence of effective dissemination > > mitigate against its right to issue binding interpretations. > > > > Being an American English speaker/reader, I had to read this 4 times before > I could decipher it. If you don't think that the WBF LC interpretations are > binding on WBF tournaments, and on all those Zones who look to WBF LC for > guidance and adhere to the WBF charter then you ain't on my frequency. More exactly, it is the By-Laws of the WBF that give the WBFLC the (sole) authority to interpret the Laws for WBF members. > If you think that Zones and NCBOs have the right to establish their own > interpretations of the Laws, (i.e. ACBL and some of the EBL NCBOs) then you > are in tepid waters. If you believe that an individual TD of any NCBO or > Zone has the right to interpret what he personally thinks English means and > apply that as Law, then you are in outer space. Have a nice trip. Kojak > There are some higher-ups in ACBL-land who think exactly that, Kojak. Ralph Cohen, vice-chair of the ACBL, answered my question about this as follows: ******* You might want to read the ACBL bylaws vis-a-vis the LC.My interpretation is that our LC has complete authority in interpreting and enforcing the LAWS in all ACBL sponsored events.We cede no authority in this regard to the WBF.We try to keep our interpretations in sync,but we do have some minor differences.RALPH ******* For those who may not have seen the ACBL by-law referred to by Ralph, which I have quoted before, here it is, taken from the ACBL web site:: ###### The ACBL Laws Commission shall consist of a minimum of nine (9) members and a maximum of (15) members. The members shall be appointed by the President of the ACBL with the approval of the Board of Directors and each shall serve for a five (5) year term. The Commission will prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and revised periodically by the Commission. ###### So, the ACBL LC obviously can interpret the Laws as it wishes, since it is responsible for preparing the Laws! And here is what Rich Colker, Appeals Administrator of the ACBL had to say in the Orlando NABC casebook: ********* "...the WBF Laws Committee's pronouncements are not binding on the ACBL for events under the ACBL's sponsorship. ******** And so, Mike Dennis, your argument should be taken up with the ACBL LC, not with Grattan, unless you plan to play in WBF events. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 15:27:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:27:03 +1100 (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 PAA04014 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:26:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id xa919565 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:26:14 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-108-72.tmns.net.au ([139.134.108.72]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Polyunsaturated-MailRouter V2.5 17/2465471); 10 Nov 1999 14:26:13 Message-ID: <016301bf2bd2$e61c3cc0$285f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:25:37 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > >..........the faintly repellent odor of monarchism. > What a cue for an Australian to join in, a few days after Australia's vote to retain our constitutional link to the monarchy. In case anyone thinks this long debate has been a waste of time, it hasn't been for me. It's been an eye-opener. At first I sympathised with Michael, largely due to Kaplan's comment, then certain parts of the great debate made me realise why Grattan is right. And along the way I learnt that Kaplan had different roles as journalist and lawmaker, which was food for thought. Thanks, Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 15:46:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:46:44 +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 PAA04075 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:46:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:44:44 -0800 Message-ID: <015901bf2b36$4ebcfd20$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridgelaws" References: Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:43:47 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robert E. Harris wrote: > > Opponents at the club level sometimes > say, "Let's just play it out!" which means they just don't see how the > stated line of play will go. This from the bottom tier of players, mostly. > For them, a calim in the form of a demonstration is needed. > > Difficulty with articulating a claim leads some players to play the > hand out, even when they know exactly what they are going to do and know > that it will work. Some of them will show the hand as they play it out to > avoid oppponents worrying about what to discard on the stream of winners. > This is technically a claim, but the statement is practical demonstration. > Not quite right, Robert. L68A: A contestant claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). The parenthetical part permits a declarer to show his/her remaining cards to opponents while saying something like, "I am not claiming, but as I play you may want to concede at some point." Don't say something like "Don't sweat it" to an opponent who is stewing. I did that once and LHO gave me what-for and called the TD, saying I had claimed. Gee, I was just trying to save the guy some needless mental anguish as I reduced the dummy's hand to high cards. Since then I have reverted to the "hand-showing-not-claiming" method, which goes over okay. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 15:57:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:57:38 +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 PAA04115 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:57:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:56:20 -0800 Message-ID: <016501bf2b37$ed348120$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridgelaws" References: Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:45:28 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robert E. Harris wrote: > > Opponents at the club level sometimes > say, "Let's just play it out!" which means they just don't see how the > stated line of play will go. This from the bottom tier of players, mostly. > For them, a calim in the form of a demonstration is needed. > > Difficulty with articulating a claim leads some players to play the > hand out, even when they know exactly what they are going to do and know > that it will work. Some of them will show the hand as they play it out to > avoid oppponents worrying about what to discard on the stream of winners. > This is technically a claim, but the statement is practical demonstration. > Not quite right, Robert. L68A: A contestant claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). The parenthetical part permits a declarer to show his/her remaining cards to opponents while saying something like, "I am not claiming, but as I play you may want to concede at some point." Don't say something like "Don't sweat it" to an opponent who is stewing. I did that once and LHO gave me what-for and called the TD, saying I had claimed. Gee, I was just trying to save the guy some needless mental anguish as I reduced the dummy's hand to high cards. Since then I have reverted to the "hand-showing-not-claiming" method, which goes over okay. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 17:46:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:46:47 +1100 (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 RAA04414 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:46:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-117-119.s119.tnt12.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.117.119]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA08170 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:46:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000c01bf2b47$3e0ee860$7775accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991107233318.013236b0@pop.mindspring.com><004e01bf2a1b$b0396be0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com><3.0.1.32.19991108231620.0130e5c4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109180212.006acf70@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:45:45 -0500 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: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 6:02 PM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > > But because not all players can be relied upon to behave honorably, we have > this sytem of Laws, complete with more or less clear, objective standards > for evaluating compliance. An interpretation (or an actual Law, should it > come to that) which relies wholly upon voluntary compliance is, in this > context, mostly irrelevant. It is unnecessary, it puts honest players at a > disadvantage to those who would transgress with no fear of consequences, > and it is contrary to an important bridge value. > > Mike Dennis > Mike, The quote below is from the Preface to the1927 Whist Club version of the Laws of Contract Bridge: "Laws are not drafted to prevent dishonorable practices; that they cannot accomplish. Ostracism is the only adequate remedy. The real object of the laws is to define the correct procedure and to provide for the situations which occur when a player through carelessness gains an unintentional, but nevertheless an unfair advantage. Consequently, penalties when provided are moderated to a minimum consistent with justice. An offending player should earnestly desire to pay the penalty and thus atone for his mistake..." A (weaker, IMO) rewording of this principle appears in the current Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge as "The Scope of the Laws". The Laws have always been based on voluntary compliance. A player who is willing to "transgress with no fear of consequences" will always have an advantage under any set of Laws, right up to the point he is kicked out of the game. We do not have laws because not all players can be relied upon to behave honorably. We have Conduct and Ethics Committees or their equivalents to deal with those. We have laws so that honorable players can have a common and well-defined structure under which to play the game. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 18:21:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:21:33 +1100 (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 SAA04496 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:21:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-117-119.s119.tnt12.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.117.119]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA13119 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 02:21:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004701bf2b4c$1adc0940$7775accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <006101bf2ad5$be6d54a0$e084d9ce@oemcomputer> <001101bf2aee$2c14b1c0$a03bac3e@davidburn> Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 02:20:34 -0500 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: BLML Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 3:08 PM Subject: Re: Protect yourself > Craig wrote: > > > Nor me. Especially when the question is repeated at a time when it > should be > > obvious to players of this class that the questioner is attempting > to get a > > count of the hand. The answer was at best disingenuous and frankly > seems to > > be deliberately misleading. The answer was at best a complete and accurate description of the partnership agreement. Quite frankly it amazes me that more people are not at least considering this possibility. >Were I not somehow persuaded otherwise, > I would > > be strongly inclined to assess a disciplinary penalty in addition to > > awarding the contract. Deliberately misstating the partnership > agreement, as > > seems possibly to have been the case here, is a serious ethical > breach. I > > think David is being very charitable in calling it being ecomomical > with the > > truth. > I think that David should be more careful with his accusations. It is of course necessary to investigate MI when there is a mismatch between the explanation and partner's hand. However, MI is far from proven, and calling Helgemo "economical with the truth" is to my mind completely unwarranted unless there is more evidence than has been presented to date. > I should hasten to emphasise that there was no actual problem. I knew > Austberg didn't have two spades and five hearts, because Helgemo would > not have bid 2S with 5-2 in the majors. I am pretty sure that Geir was > just trying to make sure I knew about the unusual part of his > agreement (two spades); he may not have felt that he needed to say > "five plus hearts" since that would be normal. I disagree with other posters who have said that "five plus hearts" would be normal. If that was the agreement, that is what he should have said. The explanation "five hearts and two spades" means just that. If the E/W agreement was indeed "five plus hearts", then the explanation was incomplete. >He may also have felt > that his partner could not have six hearts and not have opened some > kind of pre-empt, and be trying to make sure that I had that inference > too. I am certain that he had no intention of misleading me, > deliberately or otherwise; he was just trying to be helpful whilst > (unfortunately) leaving out what might have proved a significant point > of his explanation. Is it barely possible that he told you that partner's call showed 5 hearts and 2 spades because that is what their agreement was? If that is the case, then he left nothing out of his explanation at all (unless W had a known habit of distorting his shape). You seem to have leapt to the conclusion that E left out part of his explanation without considering the alternative that W had violated the agreement. >I didn't need to look at CCS or anything else; I > knew what the hand was, but the explanation seemed at variance with > that knowledge. > > At the table I did, in fact, ruff the third diamonds high and play a > heart, the obvious thing to do. But I was vaguely conscious at the > time that if I had taken my eye off the ball as a result of the words > "five hearts and two spades", then the case (if I brought one) might > have to be judged on the extent to which players are supposed to > protect themselves against damage from a wrong explanation; this has > always been an uncertain area of the Laws for me in my role as > referee. > You had adequately protected yourself the first time you asked about the call. Asking a second time should have been unnecessary. In the event that MI was present, you were "protected" if the MI had caused damage. However, MI occurs when you are not adequately informed about a partnership's *agreements*, not the hand. I can't comment on what the real agreement was, as I don't know the E/W system. However, even if you are aware of the mismatch between the hand and the explanation, you still have to play bridge. If you misplay based on the explanation, and the explanation turns out to have been a correct one, you have no case at all. IMO you're wrong about a possible case being about what you have to do to protect yourself from damage from a wrong explanation. Before it can get to that point, there first has to be a determination that there was a wrong explanation. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 20:10:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:10:47 +1100 (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 UAA04762 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:10:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.92] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11lTlq-000Jmd-00; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:10:27 +0000 Message-ID: <004801bf2b5b$6649e3c0$5c5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Tim Westmead" , Subject: Re: Asking For Authority Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:07:58 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 10 November 1999 01:33 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >In a message dated 11/9/99 6:48:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, >twm@cix.compulink.co.uk writes: > >> Despite Quango's lack of interest I would suggest that the apparent lack >> of a proper legal acknowledgement of the WBFLC authority within the laws >> together with the, again apparent, absence of effective dissemination >> mitigate against its right to issue binding interpretations. >> +=+ I do not think current dissemination can be challenged. At Lille the minutes of the WBFLC were ratified by the WBF Executive and thereby incorporated into the minutes of the Executive. They are thus available to NCBOs. To reinforce this, a hard copy was air-mailed to each affiliated NCBO. And just in case any NCBO happened to be lethargic, they have appeared on various web sites. When appointed Secretary of the WBF LC I undertook to do something about dissemination. There is now little excuse for ignorance. +=+ > >Being an American English speaker/reader, I had to read this 4 times before >I could decipher it. If you don't think that the WBF LC interpretations are >binding on WBF tournaments, and on all those Zones who look to WBF LC for >guidance and adhere to the WBF charter then you ain't on my frequency. If >you think that Zones and NCBOs have the right to establish their own >interpretations of the Laws, (i.e. ACBL and some of the EBL NCBOs) then you >are in tepid waters. If you believe that an individual TD of any NCBO or >Zone has the right to interpret what he personally thinks English means and >apply that as Law, then you are in outer space. Have a nice trip. Kojak > +=+ When Tim joins his local club he binds himself to comply with its rules. When his club affiliates to the national body it binds itself and Tim to conform to the constitution and by-laws (often described as 'statutes') of the national body. When the national body subscribes to the World Bridge Federation it binds itself, and Tim's club and Tim, to conform to the constitution and by-laws of the WBF. The Zones are admin- istrative divisions of the WBF and depend for their delegated authority on the statutes of the WBF. In looking to the law book Tim is looking in the wrong place for the evidence of authority. He can read the authority on the web site. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ QUOTE: "For purposes of administration and zonal competition, the world shall be divided by the Executive into appropriate geographical Zones. The NCBOs in each zone shall unite in a Zonal Conference herein called ZC. The number of members of the Executive for each Zone shall be set forth by the By-Laws and the ZC shall designate and accredit the members of the Executive representing the Zone." (Constitution of the World Bridge Federation) QUOTE: "A National Contract Bridge Organization ......... of any country may apply for membership in the WBF and be elected thereto .......... provided that any NCBO, to be eligible to apply for membership, shall : ..........................omissis........................................... From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 20:53:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:53:52 +1100 (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 UAA04908 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:53:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:53:19 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA02286 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:57:15 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: free finesse Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:43:33 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 08:33 AM 11/10/99 +1100, Bruce wrote: >> >>I was asked this question last night although the incident happened >>elsewhere. >> >>South is in 4H having opened 1H (showing at least 5 hearts), >>dummy holds H K9x and there are sufficient tricks to make the contract >>without any trouble regardless of the location of the HQ. >>South holds AJ10xx in hearts. >> >>The opening lead is won by South who plays a heart to the king and then >>the H9. East follows low and South plays a diamond(!), West >>(foolishly) plays a low heart and South's incorrect play is noted. >>South has now established that West does not have Qx. > >This is the Alcatraz Coup, is it not? > >Tim It most surely is. I remember a rather funny story concerning this evil coup. South is declarer in a 7S-contract with AVxxxx opposite JTxxx. South crosses to dummy and plays the jack of spades, East follows and South...a small club. West discards a diamond. "Oh, I'm very sorry, I revoked.", South says and hastily replaces his small club by a small spade. Upon which West takes back his diamond, produces the king of spades and replies: "I'm very sorry too, I too revoked..." Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 21:08:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:08:10 +1100 (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 VAA04990 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:08:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:07:43 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA02324 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:12:03 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: careless v irrational Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:58:21 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Yes, I know Schapiro's words suggest that he would ruff low >then cash AKd, spade to the K, C finesse etc.- but I still rule one > down. Perhaps I should loosen up but I firmly believe that it's >the claimer's duty to state _explicitly_ the line he takes instead >of saying that he knows how to play the hand. His further words >carry some suggestions but, the way I see it, suggestion is not >enough. >If declarer tables his hand at the critical point and says nothing >whether he is going to ruff high or low (both plays are rational >and I assume that ruffing high = finessing diamonds) >- I rule in favor of his opponents. I still think, however, that >it's close. I've sent this problem to the two Polish best TDs. >When I receive the response - I'll mail it. I must admit that I would want Schapiro at least to tell why he should ruff the heart continuation low. And of course, if declarer ruffs high, he must subsequently finesse. > I have to apologize for the second time today. >Spades were of course AJ10xxxx - Kx. You got my drift, however >- thanks a lot. This changes a lot, indeed. This case is described exacly in L70E - TD must not accept an unstated line of play depending on the position of a particular card. In this case I will give South all tricks only if West has the queen singleton (no chance to make a mistake then). Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 22:05:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:05:08 +1100 (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 WAA05231 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:04:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from p91s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.146] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11lVYE-0008Mm-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 03:04:30 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: New wbu address Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:04:51 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2b6b$69760320$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 The WBU web site has a new address. www.wbu.org.uk Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 22:15:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:15:06 +1100 (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 WAA05279 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:14:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.59.30] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11lViC-0001Wp-00; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:14:49 +0000 Message-ID: <001101bf2b6c$a759b640$1e3bac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Martin Sinot" , "'BLML'" References: Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:13:44 -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 Martin wrote: > I must admit that I would want Schapiro at least to tell why he > should ruff the heart continuation low. And of course, if declarer > ruffs high, he must subsequently finesse. I am glad that this argument did not come before an appeals committee. I fear that the effect on Boris's heart of the suggestion that he should ruff high at trick three, and then finesse against East for the queen of diamonds, might have been terminal. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 22:28:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:28:11 +1100 (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 WAA05346 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:28:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.59.30] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11lVul-0001iU-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:27:47 +0000 Message-ID: <002e01bf2b6e$7ad157c0$1e3bac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <006101bf2ad5$be6d54a0$e084d9ce@oemcomputer> <001101bf2aee$2c14b1c0$a03bac3e@davidburn> <004701bf2b4c$1adc0940$7775accf@hdavis> Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:26:48 -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 Hirsch wrote: > The answer was at best a complete and accurate description of the > partnership agreement. Quite frankly it amazes me that more people are not > at least considering this possibility. You need to be prepared to extrapolate a little, Hirsch. Of course, if "exactly two spades and exactly five hearts" could have been shown to be an accurate description of the East-West method, then there would have been no difficulty and the problem would not have been posed. Not that there was much difficulty anyway - as I have said, the question was only a hypothetical one. > I think that David should be more careful with his accusations. It is of > course necessary to investigate MI when there is a mismatch between the > explanation and partner's hand. However, MI is far from proven, and calling > Helgemo "economical with the truth" is to my mind completely unwarranted > unless there is more evidence than has been presented to date. I should not have used the phrase; it has unfortunate connotations. But I used it in an entirely literal sense, and not at all as an accusation. What Geir told me was the truth, and what he thought I needed to know, but it was not the whole truth; the part he omitted, however, was one that he not unreasonably felt it unnecessary to spell out to an opponent in an event of this nature. > Is it barely possible that he told you that partner's call showed 5 hearts > and 2 spades because that is what their agreement was? If that is the case, > then he left nothing out of his explanation at all (unless W had a > known habit of distorting his shape). You seem to have leapt to the > conclusion that E left out part of his explanation without considering the > alternative that W had violated the agreement. Well, you seem to have leapt to the conclusion that this is what I have done. A few moments' reflection might have convinced you that it was extremely unlikely that West, playing with someone who is known to be the world's simplest and most natural bidder, would have one way to bid with 2-5 in the majors and another way to bid with 2-6. Of course their agreement was "two spades and five plus hearts". > You had adequately protected yourself the first time you asked about the > call. Asking a second time should have been unnecessary. The first time I asked was during the auction; when the dummy appeared, it seemed to me that the exact explanation I had been given was impossible, so I asked again to confirm what I had heard. I then chose not to believe it anyway, but it seems to me reasonable that when a player is given an explanation that at the time he has no cause to doubt, he should be allowed to have it confirmed should cause to doubt arise. > IMO you're wrong about a possible case being about what you have to do to > protect yourself from damage from a wrong explanation. Before it can get to that > point, there first has to be a determination that there was a wrong > explanation. Yes, I know. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 10 23:54:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:54:33 +1100 (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 XAA05701 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:54:25 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA25339 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:53:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:53 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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: <0.c1acec2c.255a1726@aol.com> Kojak wrote: > Being an American English speaker/reader, I had to read this 4 times > before I could decipher it. Sorry. > If you don't think that the WBF LC > interpretations are binding on WBF tournaments, No argument with this one. (Of course I'm pretty sure that all involved will be made aware of the relevant interpretations.) > and on all those Zones > who look to WBF LC for guidance and adhere to the WBF charter then you > ain't on my frequency. If you think that Zones and NCBOs have the > right to establish their own interpretations of the Laws, (i.e. ACBL > and some of the EBL NCBOs) then you are in tepid waters. Tepid, maybe. But there are apparently senior figures in the bridge world who share this heresy. The UK parliament is subordinate to the European Court (I believe this to be undemocratic but it is constituionally clear). I would say that it was constitutionally unclear as to whether NCBOs are subordinate to the WBFLC. Were the WBFLC to interpret a LA as 'Anything that 20% of similar players would bid' I would not expect either the EBU or the ACBL to adopt this standard (I would expect both organisations to give serious consideration to its adoption). BTW where did the interpretation of LA used in WBF competitions come from (I seem to recall there is one)? > If you > believe that an individual TD of any NCBO or Zone has the right to > interpret what he personally thinks English means and apply that as > Law, then you are in outer space. Have a nice trip. Kojak I think each TD has the right (I would call it obligation) to interpret the laws, together with properly disseminated guidelines from their NCBO , whenever required to give a ruling. The vast majority of the laws enable this to take place without dispute. I think that serious players should have a duty/right to familiarise themselves with the lawbook and do their best to interpet what it says, revising their interpretations when they become aware of any official NCBO guidelines that are relevant. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 00:44:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:44:51 +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 AAA05958 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:44:43 +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 11lY32-000LqT-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:44:29 +0000 Message-ID: <1QHGQOBSnMK4Ewv6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:26:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ A player is not required to find h(**) If people wish to use a pronoun that covers both sexes some use the term "s/he". Recently I read that the equivalent adjective [what is the right word: I forget] should be "hir" [for "his/her"]. I quite like that. -- 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 Thu Nov 11 00:50:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:50:44 +1100 (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 AAA05993 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:50:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:50:18 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA03569 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:01:08 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: careless v irrational Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:47:23 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Martin wrote: > >> I must admit that I would want Schapiro at least to tell why he >> should ruff the heart continuation low. And of course, if declarer >> ruffs high, he must subsequently finesse. > >I am glad that this argument did not come before an appeals committee. >I fear that the effect on Boris's heart of the suggestion that he >should ruff high at trick three, and then finesse against East for the >queen of diamonds, might have been terminal. You are probably very right :-)) Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 02:17:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:17:04 +1100 (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 CAA06467 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:16:52 +1100 (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 KAA13988 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:12:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA00655 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:01:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:01:28 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199911101501.KAA00655@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: e6jRJaHGuRcfBY1q1MmXAA== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ A player is not required to find h(**) > > If people wish to use a pronoun that covers both sexes some use the > term "s/he". Recently I read that the equivalent adjective [what is the > right word: I forget] Possessive pronoun? > should be "hir" [for "his/her"]. I quite like > that. I don't. Jeremy. ================ Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 02:31:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:31:46 +1100 (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 CAA06556 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:31:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-243.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.243]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA03371 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:31:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <382954FD.66341386@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:20:29 +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: <015901bf2b36$4ebcfd20$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Robert E. Harris wrote: > > > > Opponents at the club level sometimes > > say, "Let's just play it out!" which means they just don't see how the > > stated line of play will go. This from the bottom tier of players, > mostly. > > For them, a calim in the form of a demonstration is needed. > > > > Difficulty with articulating a claim leads some players to play the > > hand out, even when they know exactly what they are going to do and know > > that it will work. Some of them will show the hand as they play it out to > > avoid oppponents worrying about what to discard on the stream of winners. > > This is technically a claim, but the statement is practical demonstration. > > > Not quite right, Robert. > > L68A: A contestant claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, > or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to > claim). > > The parenthetical part permits a declarer to show his/her remaining > cards to opponents while saying something like, "I am not claiming, > but as I play you may want to concede at some point." > > Don't say something like "Don't sweat it" to an opponent who is > stewing. I did that once and LHO gave me what-for and called the TD, > saying I had claimed. Gee, I was just trying to save the guy some > needless mental anguish as I reduced the dummy's hand to high cards. > Since then I have reverted to the "hand-showing-not-claiming" > method, which goes over okay. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) But which is, IMO, less correct than what Robert suggested. By playing on, saying explicitely that you are not claiming, but instead want to make opponents concede, you could find yourself afterwards in the better situation. That is what the Laws forbid. YOU are the one curtailing the play, YOU should be the one suffering the consequences of being the claiming side, if the claim turns out to be faulty. Robert's actions are better - he intends to claim, and he does, but all the while he helps his opponents by clearly showing the line. The opponents do not have to play to the rest of the tricks, and if they do, it does not commit them to the cards actually played. "The statement is the practical demonstration" is a fine description IMO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 02:31:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:31:48 +1100 (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 CAA06557 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:31:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-243.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.243]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA03389 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:31:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38295979.902109E6@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:39:37 +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: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > Apparently you are so deeply wedded to the correctness of your position in > this case that it must seem inconceivable to you for a serious person to > take a contrary view. How else to explain your remarks which have ranged > from disdainful ("specious...utterly to be disregarded") to condescending > ("wayward favourite child") to downright offensive ("merchandiser in > shoddy")? > > I'm not asking you to admit that you are, or even could possibly be, wrong. > But you have refused even to acknowledge that serious, qualified people > (that is, other than me) have doubts about your interpretation. Your great > and good friend took a strong public stance on the issue which he _never > retracted_. The editor of one of the world's leading bridge journals > disagrees with your view. In our own forum, Jesper, Tim, and Steve have all > offered at least qualified support for the arguments I have advanced. > > Are they all "merchandisers in shoddy"? Are they all merely "self-serving" > (Kojak's description of Kaplan's arguments)? Ad hominem attacks > notwithstanding, these folks perceive real arguments for a different > interpretation. The implicit suggestion that it is somehow inappropriate > for all of us little people to challenge the WBF LC othodoxy has about it > the faintly repellent odor of monarchism. > > Mike Dennis My good friend Mike, As one who is quite often at a minority position with my views and interpretations on the Laws, I would like to point out one small detail to you. You have interpreted a Law in one way, as you are entitled to do. Others have interpreted the same Law in some other way. Since your interpretation is not entirely without merit, I agree with you that calling any position "blindingly obvious" is a falsehood of the most extreme order. Obviously that Law was not worded well enough. The WBFLC has also come to that conclusion. No doubt in later issues of the Laws this situation will be redressed. But in the meantime, this is a small matter, not worthy of the reprinting of millions of Lawbooks. So the WBFLC has done the next best thing : they have issued an interpretation. Being who they are, I believe this to be world-wide and not subject to zonal or NCBO enforcement or (much less) cancellation. Now I realise that this interpretation does not carry the same weight as the Law text itself, and would not be able to be used to go against the actual letter of the Law. But you must admit that the "majority" interpretation is at least as consistent with the letter as your "minority" one is. That too is "blindingly obvious". So I would advise you to leave that particular "minority" position and change your views. As an alternative, yo can always choose to join the dWs and fight another battle. At least my interpretations have not (yet) been proven wrong by official WBFLC interpretations. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 02:39:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:39:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06613 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:39:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from janus.cee.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.26.112] ident=root) by llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #4) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 11lZpy-0000Hy-00; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:39:06 +0000 Received: by janus.cee.hw.ac.uk (Smail3.1.28.1 #96) id m11lZpx-0001RVC; Wed, 10 Nov 99 15:39 GMT Message-Id: Date: Wed, 10 Nov 99 15:39 GMT From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: Protect yourself To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Peter Gill's message of Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:06:31 -0800 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [lines deleted] [Me] > >Oh, you want a decision. I'd give the declarer his contract if he > >discarded on the 3rd diamond and it was ruffed. [Peter Gill] > That's not what I'd do. My answer is that David Burn's posting > provides insufficient information to provide a ruling. > > I'd try to establish whether East's explanation was correct and West's > call was a mild *psyche*. > > I'd ask EW about documentation of their agreements. As I can't do this [lines deleted] Of course Peter is right. I had made the assumption that we'd established that the EW methods were 2 spades & 5 PLUS hearts and that the explanation was wrong, but in a mailing list about the Laws such assumptions should be made explicit. It seems that the general point David Burn wanted us to consider has been ignored, perhaps for the very good reason that it's a can of worms. To what extent should a player be expected to protect him/her self from a possible incorrect/incomplete/misleading explanation? I remember a local case some years ago. I may misremember some details but that's not important. The auction was the common: 1C 1S Dbl ? where the double wasn't alerted as required by local alert rules and 4th seat had around an eight count and HTx in spades. He didn't raise and didn't get an adjustment later when the double turned out to have been negative. It was clear there was damage but the TD's view, and that of a majority of his peers, was that he should have protected himself by asking (no CCs were available but let's ignore that aspect for now as a side issue). I've always felt uneasy about it. What happens if you ask and discover that it is indeed penalty? Is your LHO not now in a position where a pull is more attractive, since your question strongly suggests you were thinking of raising? Or might it jog his memory if he has not alerted because he has forgotten the system? If you ask, discover it is a penalty double and pass, information arising from the question is UI for partner and may give him a problem on borderline hands. And all because we are expected to protect ourselves from a possible incorrect explanation by an *opponent*. --- "In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. -- Orson Welles to Joseph Cotton in The Third Man From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 02:54:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:54:08 +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 CAA06693 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:54:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp189-133.worldonline.nl [195.241.189.133]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA26125; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:53:50 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002201bf2aeb$951621c0$85bdf1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:49:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good heavens, time for the chairman to interrupt? Tell me the controversy first. There will be at least one advantage in my answer, I don't know the words to be so deadly 'polite' with both of you. ton -----Original Message----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 4:10 AM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >At 10:47 PM 11/9/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >>+=+ I think "debate" a misnomer for the >> extended philosophical implausibility >> that you (Michael) import at times into, >> and peddle within, the bridge world. >> No-one seems to know whether you >> believe in your own wares, or whether >> - as is suggested to me - you simply >> enjoy the sales talk. If it is the former >> then I fear you are not of this world >> and should be left in outer darkness. >> Personally I diagnose you as a >> merchandiser in shoddy, who enjoys >> living by his wits in our village (so that >> the alleged 'patience' on my part is >> more properly to be seen as the >> amused tolerance that is displayed >> towards a wayward favourite child >> who persists in being provocative). >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >As I have communicated to you in private, I have always been grateful for >your willingness to discourse with me, especially considering my total lack >of credentials of any sort. This is so even when, as in the present case, >your remarks are considerably less than flattering. > >Do I enjoy these debates? I hope that the answer is obvious from the tone >of my posts, and I make no apologies for doing so. I trust I am not alone >in gaining satisfaction from these exchanges. And it is undeniable that I >am occasionally given to rhetorical excess, which I sometimes have reason >to regret. > >But I would plead with you not to mistake either my playfulness or my >overblown style for a lack of seriousness or conviction. In this case as in >others on which we have disagreed (and as well on some on which we have >agreed), I have fundamentally spoken from a genuine commitment to the >positions I have advanced. I have been willing to acknowledge my errors on >a number of occasions, and to apologize in those instances where I have >given personal offense. > >Apparently you are so deeply wedded to the correctness of your position in >this case that it must seem inconceivable to you for a serious person to >take a contrary view. How else to explain your remarks which have ranged >from disdainful ("specious...utterly to be disregarded") to condescending >("wayward favourite child") to downright offensive ("merchandiser in >shoddy")? > >I'm not asking you to admit that you are, or even could possibly be, wrong. >But you have refused even to acknowledge that serious, qualified people >(that is, other than me) have doubts about your interpretation. Your great >and good friend took a strong public stance on the issue which he _never >retracted_. The editor of one of the world's leading bridge journals >disagrees with your view. In our own forum, Jesper, Tim, and Steve have all >offered at least qualified support for the arguments I have advanced. > >Are they all "merchandisers in shoddy"? Are they all merely "self-serving" >(Kojak's description of Kaplan's arguments)? Ad hominem attacks >notwithstanding, these folks perceive real arguments for a different >interpretation. The implicit suggestion that it is somehow inappropriate >for all of us little people to challenge the WBF LC othodoxy has about it >the faintly repellent odor of monarchism. > >Mike Dennis > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 03:49:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:24:25 +1100 (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 DAA06928 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:24:08 +1100 (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 LAA19749; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:21:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA050630866; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:21:07 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA263710865; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:21:05 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:20:50 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Incorrect Quitted Trick Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk, 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 DAA06929 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> >>Declarer played the heart four to his Jack but in quitting this trick >>dummy turned down the heart King and apparently noone noticed this >>irregularity. >> > >This case is exactly described in L45D - dummy played a card which >declarer did not name. This can be corrected until both sides played >to the next trick. Since declarer woke up much later than that, nothing >can be done anymore, and the result stands. The heart king in fact >replaced the heart four after both sides played to the next trick. I wondered about this - but it is not what happened, is it? Dummy played the correct card - and then turned down the wrong one. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Not so evident for me too. Law45D says : "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, ..." Here, dummy placed "in the played position" the card named by declarer, but quitted an other one. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 03:53:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:53:56 +1100 (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 DAA07132 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:53:48 +1100 (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 LAA19237 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:54:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991110115536.007462dc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:55:36 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: careless v irrational In-Reply-To: <3827FC7B.F6103F7F@omicron.comarch.pl> References: <199911082309.SAA27894@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000901bf2a51$05f01180$9e5fac3e@davidburn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:50 AM 11/9/99 +0100, Konrad wrote: > Declarer opened 4S and everyone passed. The defense cashed >the first six tricks in side suits and declarer said: "I have the >rest". His spades were, however, AKJ10xxx - xx. Yes the queen was >doubleton offside and the TD gave one more trick to the defenders - >a right decision in my view. > I think that the "top down" guidance should only be applied >in simple cash out situations. I agree with the last statement, and also believe that that is what the guideline means. But I disagree with the ruling under the guideline, as this does appear to me to be a simple cash-out situation. One notes that (barring declarer's RHO on lead with a potential overruff by LHO coming, which would clearly lead to the loss of another trick) if the spade suit were, say, AKJ10654 - 32 there would be no way, barring the (IMO irrational) non-top-down cash) for the defense to take another trick, and if even there were, declarer's (admittedly flawed) statement of his claim would have to be tortured to excess to assume that he might have even considered underruffing in hand at trick 7, getting to dummy by overruffing himself, then finessing. 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 Nov 11 03:54:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:54:10 +1100 (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 DAA07138 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:54:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from pbfs12a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.172.192] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11lazj-0006d7-00; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:53:15 +0000 Message-ID: <000301bf2b9b$f8b06be0$c0ac93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Tim Westmead" , Cc: "Tim Westmead" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:49:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: 10 November 1999 13:15 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >In-Reply-To: <0.c1acec2c.255a1726@aol.com> >Kojak wrote: >> Being an American English speaker/reader, > >Tepid, maybe. But there are apparently senior figures in the bridge world >who share this heresy. The UK parliament is subordinate to the European >Court (I believe this to be undemocratic but it is constituionally clear). >I would say that it was constitutionally unclear as to whether NCBOs are >subordinate to the WBFLC. > +=+ Well, let us see whether Tim thinks this full quote from the Constitution of the WBF lacks clarity: ##"Article 2. Membership. (1) Organizations: A National Contract Bridge Organization (herinafter called the NCBO) of any country may apply for membership in the WBF and be elected thereto by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Executive present at any meeting at which a quorum is present, provided that any NCBO, to be eligible to apply for membership, shall - have an appropriate register of members - be open to all citizens or residents of the particular country subject only to meeting the requirements of such NCBO - *UNDERTAKE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF THE WBF - uphold an image of integrity and enforce a standard of ethics acceptable to the WBF - comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the WBF governing its bridge competitions - play bridge according to the current international Codes - agree to play in all WBF competitions against all other NCBOs who are qualified members of the WBF The term 'country' shall mean any country, state, territory or part of a territory, which the WBF in its absolute discretion considers as the area appropriate for an NCBO. "## [* my block letters] (i) I have not seen an explanatory statement of 'its' in the phrase 'governing its bridge competitions'. As written it could be thought a carrot for BLs, but I judge it to refer to the WBF's competitions. (ii) the mind boggles a bit at "the requirements of such NCBO" - think what Idi Amin could have done with that. (iii) The WBF By-Laws require that the WBFLC shall interpret the Laws. Presumably Tim had no prior knowledge of these conditions of membership. And, yes, I know one NCBO has a problem with them, but at least Tim's question as to the existence of authority is answered: NCBOs have contracted themselves to it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 05:08:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:56:21 +1100 (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 CAA06716 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:56:07 +1100 (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 KAA12034 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:56:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991110105746.00690e48@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:57:46 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: careless v irrational In-Reply-To: <000901bf2a51$05f01180$9e5fac3e@davidburn> References: <199911082309.SAA27894@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:23 AM 11/9/99 -0000, David wrote: > K742 > 654 > J1032 > 65 > > A3 > 108 > AK9854 > AQ8 > >West North East South > 1H 2D >Pass 3D Pass 3H >Pass 4D Pass 5D >All pass > >West leads H7, East wins the jack and continues with the queen, West >playing the 3 (consistent with a doubleton). Declarer (Boris Schapiro) >claims, tabling his cards and saying: "I know how to play this hand. >If the club finesse works, I make it, otherwise I go down, but if West >has three diamonds I go down anyway." West has three small hearts and >the singleton queen of diamonds; East has the king of clubs (in a >3-5-2-3 shape). Does declarer make his contract? Would he make it if >West had three hearts and DQx? Very interesting case. It seems to hinge on a principle I have derived from this (extraordinary fruitful) thread, which is that one must recognize the difference between the "claim" and the "claim statement"; the claim is what we adjudicate, the claim statement is the vehicle by which we determine the nature of the claim (with, of course, the usual "benefit of the doubt" caveat). Understanding the nature of the claim hinges on Mr. Shapiro's statement that he will go down if West has three diamonds. That means that he intends to play diamonds by cashing a high honor and taking the then-proven finesse should West show out. He will be unable to do this if he ruffs high at trick 3, so I conclude that he did not intend to do so. Therefore I allow the make in either of the cases posed, but would rule him down had West held a doubleton heart and the DQ. It's tougher if West had a doubleton heart without the DQ, but I would probably rule that it would be irrational for a player of Mr. Shapiro's caliber to ruff with the 4 or 5 rather than with the 8 or 9. 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 Nov 11 05:08:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:08:38 +1100 (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 FAA07544 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:08:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-253.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.253]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA07928 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:08:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001001bf2ba6$d06af820$fd84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:10:02 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Hirsch Davis To: BLML Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 2:31 AM Subject: Re: Protect yourself > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Burn >To: BLML >Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 3:08 PM >Subject: Re: Protect yourself > > >> Craig wrote: >> >> > Nor me. Especially when the question is repeated at a time when it >> should be >> > obvious to players of this class that the questioner is attempting >> to get a >> > count of the hand. The answer was at best disingenuous and frankly >> seems to >> > be deliberately misleading. > (HD)>The answer was at best a complete and accurate description of the >partnership agreement. Quite frankly it amazes me that more people are not >at least considering this possibility. (CS-NEW) I think it amazing that you did not note my next sentence...that would be one of the ways in which I could be persuaded otherwise. I can only trust in the case descriptions on line. Also, if that were indeed the agreement I trust David Burn would never have felt there was any question to have put to BLML. On the scene I would, of course, have attempted to find out what the true agreement had been. But if the agreement had NOT been incorrectly or incompletely explained, there was nothing for us to have been considering in the first pace, now was there? One might also hope that it the agreement were "exactly five hearts and two spades" that it might be fully expained in those words, especially after being asked a second time. None of my comments are intended to cast aspersions on the ethics of the specific player involved. I comment on the situation only. An international player with a fine ethical reputation could, I suppose, incorrectly explain something with no deceitful or malicious intent. Again, you have to be there to begin to get a reading on this. David was. He says there was no apparent ethical lapse. I believe him. But the situation as described would place a strong presumption of improper conduct in the mind of a director, enough to make him proceed thoroughly in determining if the full facts match that presumption, or if mitigating circumstances exist, or if the presumption was altogether wrong. It's an art...that's why we don't have computerised direction. If the facts did bear out the presumption though, this is something that should not be politely swept under the rug just because a name player is involved. The better the player, the more compelling is the need for the fine ethics I am told Mr. Helgemo possesses...and the more compelling the the need for full and correct disclosure of partnership agreements, explicit and implicit as required by the laws. (CS)>>Were I not somehow persuaded otherwise, >> I would >> > be strongly inclined to assess a disciplinary penalty in addition to >> > awarding the contract. Deliberately misstating the partnership >> agreement, as >> > seems possibly to have been the case here, is a serious ethical >> breach. I >> > think David is being very charitable in calling it being ecomomical >> with the >> > truth. >> > (HD)>I think that David should be more careful with his accusations. It is of >course necessary to investigate MI when there is a mismatch between the >explanation and partner's hand. However, MI is far from proven, and calling >Helgemo "economical with the truth" is to my mind completely unwarranted >unless there is more evidence than has been presented to date. > (DB)>> I should hasten to emphasise that there was no actual problem. I knew >> Austberg didn't have two spades and five hearts, because Helgemo would >> not have bid 2S with 5-2 in the majors. I am pretty sure that Geir was >> just trying to make sure I knew about the unusual part of his >> agreement (two spades); he may not have felt that he needed to say >> "five plus hearts" since that would be normal. > (HD)>I disagree with other posters who have said that "five plus hearts" would be >normal. If that was the agreement, that is what he should have said. The >explanation "five hearts and two spades" means just that. If the E/W >agreement was indeed "five plus hearts", then the explanation was >incomplete. > (CS-NEW) Here we agree. There is no need for ambiguity. Flannery is 5H/4s. 2H weak is 5+ hearts. Why explain otherwise? No UI problem, takes no time, avoids MI and is ethically correct. (DB)>>He may also have felt >> that his partner could not have six hearts and not have opened some >> kind of pre-empt, and be trying to make sure that I had that inference >> too. I am certain that he had no intention of misleading me, >> deliberately or otherwise; he was just trying to be helpful whilst >> (unfortunately) leaving out what might have proved a significant point >> of his explanation. > (HD)>Is it barely possible that he told you that partner's call showed 5 hearts >and 2 spades because that is what their agreement was? If that is the case, >then he left nothing out of his explanation at all (unless W had a >known habit of distorting his shape). You seem to have leapt to the >conclusion that E left out part of his explanation without considering the >alternative that W had violated the agreement. > (DB)>>I didn't need to look at CCS or anything else; I >> knew what the hand was, but the explanation seemed at variance with >> that knowledge. >> >> At the table I did, in fact, ruff the third diamonds high and play a >> heart, the obvious thing to do. But I was vaguely conscious at the >> time that if I had taken my eye off the ball as a result of the words >> "five hearts and two spades", then the case (if I brought one) might >> have to be judged on the extent to which players are supposed to >> protect themselves against damage from a wrong explanation; this has >> always been an uncertain area of the Laws for me in my role as >> referee. >> > (HD)>You had adequately protected yourself the first time you asked about the >call. Asking a second time should have been unnecessary. In the event that >MI was present, you were "protected" if the MI had caused damage. However, >MI occurs when you are not >adequately informed about a partnership's *agreements*, not the hand. I >can't comment on >what the real agreement was, as I don't know the E/W system. However, even >if you are aware of the mismatch between the hand and the explanation, you >still have to play bridge. If you misplay based on the explanation, and the >explanation turns out to have been a correct one, you have no case at all. > >IMO you're wrong about a possible case being about what you have to do to >protect >yourself from damage from a wrong explanation. Before it can get to that >point, there first has to be a determination that there was a wrong >explanation. > >Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 05:17:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:17:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f157.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA07595 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:17:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 36252 invoked by uid 0); 10 Nov 1999 18:17:01 -0000 Message-ID: <19991110181701.36251.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:17:00 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The case of the angry absentee Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:17:00 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Michael Albert >Scene: Second to last round of the club pairs championships I am going to assume here that that means that there is some decent quality players here (in the ACBL, a club can hold a "club championship" every quarter for each game scheduled. All it means here is that you get twice the monsterpoints). >Persona: Two contending pairs. N is playing director (owing to the >scheduled director being called in to work at the last moment.) > Fine - I notice that N has appointed an assistant for these sorts of things. Unfortunate, but fine. >EW have an alert-ridden auction to 4H by W. South on lead asks for an >explanation of some calls. W makes an explanation, which E points out >is a >little incomplete. W now remarks that he wouldn't expect S to >give a >complete explanation so why should he? S takes offense (not >unreasonably >though the initial remark was intended as flippant.) As would I. >Now things get a bit serious ... but in a quiet sort of Kiwi way, for Hey, I'm Canadian - I understand. We had a Loyal Opposition whose stated goal was to break up the country ... in a quiet sort of way :-) >example the club recorder sitting at the next table never realised >that >there was a problem. Anyhow, the allegation is repeated, S >demands an >apology, seconded by E, one is given, S claims it is >insincere (possibly >with some justification). Ok, you have four people at the table, at least one of whom is a director, in a situation that is about to explode and that has already broached several of the Proprieties, and the TD hasn't been called? "What do they think they're paying you for, making coffee?" I can understand not calling the TD the instant of the offending remark. Against the Laws, but probably in the best interest of the game, and W could have been joking. As soon as it was repeated, though,... The score so far: W -2, N -1, E -.5 (she is trying to smooth things over, after all), S -1, with N an additional procedural penalty of -1 for knowing better and *still* not calling the TD. >S decides he has been intolerably provoked and simply leaves the >table. South needs seating in a chair with restraints and being forced to read L9B, L72A1, L72A6, L72B2, L74A, and L74C8 until it is clear that he *understands*. You.Call.The.Director.Before.You.Get.To.The. Intolerably.Provoked.Stage. I may be sounding too harsh to the offended (I was going to say non-offenders, but I think this is more correct), but you *don't* refuse to play in a game you've signed up for. You are allowed to try to get the director to throw your opponents out, but you don't leave. And N doesn't do anything? Like warn S of the trouble he's getting himself into? Or Calling The Director? Or something? >Subsequently S returns and plays the remainder of the session (but >not the >two boards scheduled against this EW). > >After S's departure the hapless director's assistant (yours truly) is >called to the table by E, Fina-%*#$ing-ly. Too bad I can't give split scores to E and W. >and promptly sent away again by N (the playing director) with words to the >effect of "we'll sort it out at >the end of the session". "What is he paying you for, making coffee?" What kind of drugs is he on? There are only three people at the table when there are boards to be played, and someone waves the director away? May I suggest a copy of the FLB be given to N as a Christmas gift? Time to pull out the chair with restraints again... >At the end of the session I'm told by the director that boards A+B will >require an adjusted score as "we" >refused to play them. I check that "we" >means NS and not everyone at >the table. I do not know the facts in the >paragraph above, nor do I >make any effort to determine at this time what >precipitated the >refusal. I rule, routinely as far as I am concerned, 60% >to EW, 40% >to NS, plus a 40% procedural penalty to NS, so effectively >60-0. How generous of you. In the ACBL, the routine ruling would be 60% EW, disqualification NS, recommendation for C&E hearing (which, given the facts stated, I would expect would forgive S. I have no idea what they would do to N). See http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conduct.htm#REFUSAL for the regulation. Note especially the "shall require" and "conduct unbecoming a member" parts. >I also make a serious procedural error -- I'm so attuned to the >notion that the adjustment is automatic (and expected by all parties >concerned) that I don't specifically tell them the results of the > >adjustment. > That's certainly true. >I also inform the club recorder and club captain that there has >obviously >been some sort of "incident" which may well require a >disciplinary >investigation/hearing, and make sure that they recognise >that the >situation is quite serious. On my own, I find out, largely >from EW the >course of events. > >When S discovers the results of the adjustment he is most upset. He >argues >that as the injured, non-offending party, he if anyone should >be getting >the 60% board, and EW the 0. He demands a re-adjustment, >and continues to >do so. > "Ok, sure, I agree with you (S). E-W 60% (they were in no way at fault for being unable to play the boards) - 60% procedural penalty for repeated breach of L74A1,2 and B2. N-S disqualification, removal of record from the event, and the disciplinary hearing that's already scheduled. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. BTW, please tell me if by next week W hasn't apologized to you for his conduct sincerely in your opinion." If he splutters, add "You were certainly the injured and offended party. But you stopped being non-offending when you took the law into your own hands, rather than calling the director as you are required to. You have committed one of the most serious breaches of etiquette I have seen at the bridge table. Do you understand me?" And go get W, and explain to him that if he does not realize that what he did was very wrong, that it will go on his record anyway, and that he should never do this again, he will face a disciplinary hearing himself, who will no doubt make it clear to him. Now, apologize to S, and mean it, or I will send you to that disciplinary hearing anyway. Oh, and hope that N will realize he was wrong, and let you back into games he directs (not likely, but a hope). >This is the sort of issue on which I think official procedural >guidance >would be useful. The logic which I used to decide my >adjustment was that >given the unilateral action by S in causing the >boards to become >unplayable, it was not up to me in deciding the >score adjustment for those >particular boards to address any further >issues (though I expected them to >be addressed in subsequent >investigation.) Effectively, by walking out, I >maintain that S >changed a single infraction of proprieties by W, into two >infractions, the second of which (his own) was what caused the boards >to >become unplayable. > I have ruled according to the regs of the ACBL (i.e. we have official procedural guidance). They seem reasonable (even though knowledge of that reg. has been the only thing stopping me from walking out on at least two occasions[1][2]). >Had S properly called me while the dispute was taking place, then I >would >have been in a position to try and defuse the situation >(probably >impossible) and convince the players to play the boards, >and failing that, >to make a judgement regarding the extent of the >provocation and whether or >not it was reasonable to expect the boards >to be played. If not, then >probably 50-50 all round, plus an >immediate committee hearing to decide >what, if any, further penalties >would be appropriate. Of course. Also, had E, N, or W properly called you while the dispute was taking place, and had N not waved you away when you were called, a similar (i.e. correct) decision would have been made. I hope (also probably impossible) your players don't hold grudges... Michael. [1]I've stated, publicly, that the ACBL has made a reasonable judgement, twice in as many days. Either the happy pills are kicking in, or I'm getting mellow in my old age. :-) [2]I wonder what would have happened if I had told the truth on those two occasions; i.e. call the director and state "Hi. I'm worried that I am going to attempt to slit LHO's wrists with his own Ace of Spades. Can you watch this table for the rest of the round, and make sure that I don't do that, and that I am given no further reasons to? Thanks." Yes, this was before ZT. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 05:31:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:31:35 +1100 (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 FAA07670 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:31:27 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id fNUEa14357 (4390); Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:30:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.2ddc485.255b13ce@aol.com> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:30:38 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: gester@globalnet.co.uk, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:44:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 356 invoked by uid 0); 10 Nov 1999 18:44:01 -0000 Message-ID: <19991110184401.354.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:44:01 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: free finesse Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:44:01 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Bruce >I was asked this question last night although the incident happened >elsewhere. > >South is in 4H having opened 1H (showing at least 5 hearts), >dummy holds H K9x and there are sufficient tricks to make the >contract >without any trouble regardless of the location of the HQ. >South holds AJ10xx in hearts. > >The opening lead is won by South who plays a heart to the king and >then >the H9. East follows low and South plays a diamond(!), West >(foolishly) plays a low heart and South's incorrect play is noted. >South has now established that West does not have Qx. > >Now as South must play a heart West can withdraw the card played >and play a different card. At this stage West tells South that >with unauthorised information they should play the King. > Why, oh why do lusers continually try to do my job, when they know they can't do it? Oh, yes, because they're lusers. Well, there's a way of making sure he doesn't do this again (pulls out FLB with optional 25 000V taser attached). I assume that the director was called, and West told the director this. No? Hm. When did the director get called? First, I don't think W was silly playing the heart. If he can get S to play again before noticing the revoke, it's established, and EW may just have set an unbreakable contract. It's not the way I want to win, but it's perfectly legal. Ok, let's look at this one carefully. Yes, it was an Alcatraz coup. Let's run through the Laws: L62A - the revoke must be corrected. L62B - the revoke may be corrected by any card. I do not believe that L16C applies yet, because W's card has not been replaced. L62C1 - W's card may be replaced. Now the L16C penalties apply. Ok, so the finesse works. Is it obvious that he was setting up to finesse? I think so. Is it possible that he was "trying"? Yes. Is there something about that in the Laws? Hmm. I dimly remember something... L72B1 - Knowledge of the Alcatraz Coup is so common that it is unreasonable to believe that declarer, unless he speaks Cro-Magnon as a native language, could not have known ... Did the offending side gain advantage through the irregularity? Yes. So I adjust. If S can convince me that he was going to finesse all the time (like giving me a demonstrable bridge reason) I'll allow it. If there had only been 4 trumps out, I would require much more convincing (8 ever, 9 never, after all). I am still going to be biased in favour of the non-offenders. No matter what, PPwarnings to S for (even accidentally) trying one of the oldest shyster tricks in the book, and to W for violation of L72A6 and pretty much all of L9. "Oh, and your actions would have been just as wrong if you had got the ruling right." Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 05:46:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:46:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA07764 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:46:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:45:53 -0800 Message-ID: <019801bf2bab$d19702c0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <1QHGQOBSnMK4Ewv6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:45:47 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ A player is not required to find h(**) > > If people wish to use a pronoun that covers both sexes some use the > term "s/he". Recently I read that the equivalent adjective [what is the > right word: I forget] should be "hir" [for "his/her"]. I quite like > that. > I've been tempted to use the ugly "hizzer" (a slurred his/her) as the possessive pronoun, but will take "hir" under consideration, provided that when spoken it is pronounced in the German/Spanish fashion ("hear"). The English pronunciation leans too far in the feminine direction. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 05:49:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:02:11 +1100 (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 DAA06763 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:01:57 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA20765 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:01:15 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:01 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Authority 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: <004801bf2b5b$6649e3c0$5c5208c3@swhki5i6> Grattan wrote: > +=+ I do not think current dissemination can > be challenged. At Lille the minutes of the > WBFLC were ratified by the WBF Executive > and thereby incorporated into the minutes > of the Executive. They are thus available > to NCBOs. To reinforce this, a hard copy > was air-mailed to each affiliated NCBO. Realistically this is as far as the WBFLC can go. It then falls on the various NCBOs to further promulgate the information (I apologise if I missed a reference to this piece of work from the EBU). > +=+ When Tim joins his local club he binds himself > to comply with its rules. Tim agrees. > When his club affiliates > to the national body it binds itself and Tim to > conform to the constitution and by-laws (often > described as 'statutes') of the national body. Tim agrees > When the national body subscribes to the World > Bridge Federation it binds itself, and Tim's club > and Tim, to conform to the constitution and > by-laws of the WBF. The Zones are admin- > istrative divisions of the WBF and depend for > their delegated authority on the statutes of the > WBF. In looking to the law book Tim is looking > in the wrong place for the evidence of authority. > He can read the authority on the web site. Tim hadn't realised this. Being a bit of a Luddite it hadn't occurred to him to look at the website. I must confess that this is a much tighter affiliation than I had expected based on my memory of what various ACBL (and other) figures had previously been reported as saying. Marv French provided the following (which refreshed my memory): > And here is what Rich Colker, Appeals Administrator of the ACBL had > to say in the Orlando NABC casebook: > ********* > "...the WBF Laws Committee's pronouncements are not binding on the > ACBL for events under the ACBL's sponsorship. > ******** Based on your quotes from the constitution this now sounds like an extremely serious breach. Let's face it, if the ACBL does not abide by the WBF constitution then that constitution is worth significantly less then the electronic medium on which it is stored. Maybe there is a difference between "pronouncement" and "interpretation" but this sort of thing is, to me at least, genuinely confusing. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 06:03:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:03:47 +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 GAA07851 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:03:34 +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 OAA10111 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:03:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA29666 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:03:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:03:18 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911101903.OAA29666@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: free finesse X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Bruce > Law 16 states that the offending pair cannot make any play that takes > advantage of the UI. I expect that a low heart would be the natural > play (to pick up 4 to the Q on the right) and that appears to be why > the 9 was led. As others have noted, this was a classic Alcatraz Coup. Declarer gets to hear L72B2 read out and explained. If declarer is experienced and there's any hint the play was other than accidental, declarer gets firsthand experience with the C&E committee. In this case, the score adjustment is probably not too hard. As Bruce says, L16C2 applies. Existence of UI and "suggested over another" are not in doubt, so the only relevant question is whether playing a high heart would be a logical alternative in the jurisdiction and for the player in question. We would need to see the whole hand to be sure, but if the trump suit is the only problem, the percentage play (finesse) is very likely the only LA. Declarer's intention when he led the 9 is not relevant, but having led the 9 may make some choices of play from hand no longer logical. The "natural play" is also irrelevant. The question is not whether the finesse would be natural but whether _not to finesse_ would be a logical alternative. There's also L72B1 to consider. At first, I didn't think it would do anything here that 16C2 won't, but on further thought, it can in some jurisdictions. L72B1 provides for an adjusted score if the NOS are damaged. Suppose you believe that there is, say, a 20% chance that declarer would have played for the drop absent the infraction. In some jurisdictions, this would be too low for the drop to be a LA, but it might be above the threshold for "at all probable" in L12C2. (If the probability is above the threshold for "likely," surely it must be a LA!) So you might adjust the score for the OS but not for the NOS. This can happen only in a jurisdiction that defines a LA as something 20-30% of players would do, not in a "strict" jurisdiction like the ACBL or (?) Australia (10%, isn't it?). None of this is relevant if "no declarer in the world" was going to play for the drop. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 06:06:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:06:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA07879 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:06:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:06:10 -0800 Message-ID: <01b801bf2bae$a6c69800$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <015901bf2b36$4ebcfd20$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <382954FD.66341386@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: careless v irrational Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:56:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > Robert E. Harris wrote: > > > > > > Opponents at the club level sometimes > > > say, "Let's just play it out!" which means they just don't see how the > > > stated line of play will go. This from the bottom tier of players, > > mostly. > > > For them, a claim in the form of a demonstration is needed. > > > > > > Difficulty with articulating a claim leads some players to play the > > > hand out, even when they know exactly what they are going to do and know > > > that it will work. Some of them will show the hand as they play it out to > > > avoid oppponents worrying about what to discard on the stream of winners. > > > This is technically a claim, but the statement is practical demonstration. > > > > > Not quite right, Robert. > > > > L68A: A contestant claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, > > or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to > > claim). > > > > The parenthetical part permits a declarer to show his/her remaining > > cards to opponents while saying something like, "I am not claiming, > > but as I play you may want to concede at some point." > > > > Don't say something like "Don't sweat it" to an opponent who is > > stewing. I did that once and LHO gave me what-for and called the TD, > > saying I had claimed. Gee, I was just trying to save the guy some > > needless mental anguish as I reduced the dummy's hand to high cards. > > Since then I have reverted to the "hand-showing-not-claiming" > > method, which goes over okay. > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > But which is, IMO, less correct than what Robert suggested. > > By playing on, saying explicitly that you are not claiming, > but instead want to make opponents concede, you could find > yourself afterwards in the better situation. That is what > the Laws forbid. YOU are the one curtailing the play, YOU > should be the one suffering the consequences of being the > claiming side, if the claim turns out to be faulty. I am not curtailing the play, I am only reminding them that they are free to do so if they get bored. Ethically speaking, I would never do this unless quite sure that the rest are mine, and that there is no possible communication problem. If my action injures them in any way whatsoever, I will be glad to pay a penalty. > > Robert's actions are better - he intends to claim, and he > does, but all the while he helps his opponents by clearly > showing the line. The opponents do not have to play to the > rest of the tricks, and if they do, it does not commit them > to the cards actually played. Robert's actions constitute a claim, according to L68A. Play ceases after a claim. > > "The statement is the practical demonstration" is a fine > description IMO. Not understood. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 06:45:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:29:32 +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 GAA07987 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:29:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27158; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:28:47 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19991110184401.354.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:20:16 -0500 To: "Michael Farebrother" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: free finesse Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:44 PM +0000 11/10/99, Michael Farebrother wrote: >No matter what, PPwarnings to S for (even accidentally) trying one of the >oldest shyster tricks in the book, I would apply this only if South doesn't call the director upon attempting to correct his revoke; he has then violated a Law for which he may be given a warning or penalty. If South did call the director, is he required to tell the director, "I have revoked and I believe I have made an unintentional Alcatraz Coup?" I don't think so; it's the director's repsonsibility to rule on Alcatraz Coups, once in possession of the facts. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 07:46:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:27:55 +1100 (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 DAA06977 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:27:41 +1100 (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 LAA16077 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:27:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991110112915.00746298@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:29:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Protect yourself In-Reply-To: <005601bf2a62$3414c040$9e5fac3e@davidburn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:26 AM 11/9/99 -0000, David wrote: >London v Norway, 1999 Lederer: > > A > K62 > J1065 > QJ1032 >72 KJ983 >AJ9854 73 >92 AK874 >964 A > Q10654 > Q10 > Q3 > K875 > >West North East South >Austberg Callaghan Helgemo Burn >Pass Pass 1S Pass >2H (1) Dble 2S 3C >All pass > >(1) Alerted and explained as "five hearts and two spades" > >West led S2 (low from doubletons), ace, three (encouraging), four. >South played CQ from dummy, ace, five, six. East played AK and another >diamond. South asked again about 2H, and was told "five hearts and two >spades". Suppose he had gone one down by discarding on the third round >of diamonds, and suppose he then asked for a ruling. What would you >give him, if anything? I would first need to ascertain the nature of the defenders' actual agreement: Did 2H promise exactly five hearts, or at least five hearts? If the former (i.e. West chose to deliberately violate his agreement as a matter of judgment), then of course there is no MI and no basis for adjustment, but the subject line suggests that the latter is to be assumed. The original explanation, if parsed carefully, suggests the former, but given the way people say things in real life it is ambiguous; it could be taken to mean either. South is expected to realize this, and, if it matters, to protect himself by inquiring further. But he did inquire further, and received a repetition of the original ambiguous statement. At this level, East, who, like South, should be expected to realize that his original statement was ambiguous, and to presume that South had not simply forgotten the first statement but was attempting to elicit further information, should have made at least some attempt to clarify it rather than simply repeating it. South could have pursued the question further, but to do so would have bordered on badgering; moreover, he was being technically correct to ask for clarification of the original statement rather than to state exactly what particular piece of information he was after. I would be loath to "punish" him for making a reasonable assumption *after* having taken what was, IMO, sufficient action to attempt to protect himself. I would therefore adjust. I know there are those who will argue (assuming the Lederer is an IMP event, I am not familiar with it) that it would be irrational for South to discard on the third round of diamonds, and that by doing so he has lost his right to an adjustment, but I don't believe that this has anything to do with the question David is asking. 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 Nov 11 07:47:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:56:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f69.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA08079 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:56:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 83706 invoked by uid 0); 10 Nov 1999 19:55:57 -0000 Message-ID: <19991110195557.83705.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:55:56 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: free finesse Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:55:56 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "David J. Grabiner" >At 6:44 PM +0000 11/10/99, Michael Farebrother wrote: > >>No matter what, PPwarnings to S for (even accidentally) trying one >>of >>the oldest shyster tricks in the book, > >I would apply this only if South doesn't call the director upon >attempting >to correct his revoke; he has then violated a Law for >which he may be >given a warning or penalty. > >If South did call the director, is he required to tell the director, >"I >have revoked and I believe I have made an unintentional Alcatraz >Coup?" I >don't think so; it's the director's repsonsibility to rule >on Alcatraz >Coups, once in possession of the facts. > Oh, I expect that my Procedural Penalty (Warning) would be of the nature of "I know you didn't intend to do this, but it is one of the things a nefarious person would do (L72B1, remember). In fact, it was first written up in bridge lore around 1930. I'm not accusing you of doing anything deliberate, but you should really watch out for this situation in future." The (snipped) PPw to W would be along the lines of "When there's an irregularity, call me, politely, please; don't try to work it out yourself. For one thing, that's what you're paying me for; for another, I have a copy of the Laws with me, to make sure I get it right. And this way, if someone feels hard done by, they're upset at me, not you :-)" Oh and sorry about the Divide by Cucumber error (footnote not found): in my previous post: [1] Bastard Director From Hell. In a similar vein to Simon Trevaglia's great BOperatorFH series: http://www.iinet.net.au/~bofh/ . Michael. P.S. Does it worry anyone else that I get David's response to my post before my post gets back from australia? mdf > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 08:23:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:23:03 +1100 (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 IAA08479 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:22:54 +1100 (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 QAA19974 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:23:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991110162443.006a57f8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:24:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Pronouns for persons of unspecified gender In-Reply-To: <019801bf2bab$d19702c0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <1QHGQOBSnMK4Ewv6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We seem to be back to this issue, which I have managed to avoid in previous go-arounds. It has nothing to do with bridge or bridge laws, so I expect most of you will feel free to delete this message without reading further. For those who are interested, I wrote an essay on the subject some years back, which was reproduced in part in the archives of alt.usage.english (and is probably still available from Deja News); what follows is a brief summary. There are six approaches to the problem which have been taken by various authors: (1) Use "he"/"him"/"his"[/etc.]. These forms can legimately designate either a male referent or a referent of unknown gender. This is probably the most common approach, and remains the one favored by most prescriptivists, who believe that it is silly to read this usage as having any sexist implications. Nevertheless, there are those who do see this usage as sexist, and those who, whatever their personal view, do not wish to offend that group, and may wish to consider other alternatives. (2) Use "he or she"/"him or her"... This is perfect grammar by anyone's standard, but I find it rather pedantic. (3) Newly coined terms, such as "e" or "s/he"/"hir"... This approach is particularly favored by some of the more radical feminist authors, but I find it ugly. (4) Use normally plural pronouns ("they"/"them") in the singular. This has literary antecendents back to at least Jane Austen, and is accepted by some modern prescriptivists (RH2 cites "Everyone should do their own thing" as an example of common and acceptable usage). This approach happens to be my personal preference. (If someone reading this doesn't like it, I suggest they not use it.) (5) Strict alternation. Start with either "he"/"him" or "she"/"her", then change to the other with each occasion to use a pronoun. This is rare, thankfully; I find it very confusing to use different pronouns for the same referent, and expect most readers would agree. (6) Contextual alternation. Like (5), but change only when the referent changes. This is much better than (5), but can still be somewhat confusing, as the reader is likely to assume that the author intends (1) and is referring to a female referent when using the feminine form. 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 Nov 11 08:23:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:23:03 +1100 (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 IAA08478 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:22:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh41.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.129]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA26757 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:22:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991110162000.0132dadc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:20:00 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <016301bf2bd2$e61c3cc0$285f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:25 PM 11/10/99 -0800, Peter wrote: >In case anyone thinks this long debate has been a waste of time, it hasn't >been for me. It's been an eye-opener. At first I sympathised with Michael, >largely due to Kaplan's comment, then certain parts of the great debate >made me realise why Grattan is right. And along the way I learnt that >Kaplan had different roles as journalist and lawmaker, which was food >for thought. > Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Peter. You obviously have reviewed the arguments with an open mind and formed your own judgement as to the proper interpretation. A good model for how this forum ought to work, in my opinion. Naturally I might have preferred that you found my own arguments to be the more persuasive, but that is really beside the point. This is not a contest, with winners to be totted up based upon some sort of poll. It is, or should be at any rate, a civilized exchange of views on matters of interest to the participants. I take some comfort that you have not fully adopted the Endicott/Burn/Stevenson position, however, as your post lacked the requisite stridency for you to be considered a Member in Good Standing. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 09:01:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:01:18 +1100 (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 JAA08700 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:01:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.41] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11lfnS-0005UN-00; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:00:54 +0000 Message-ID: <001401bf2bc7$082e46c0$295108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Asking For Authority Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:21:00 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: 10 November 1999 19:35 Subject: Re: Asking For Authority > >Marv French provided the following (which refreshed my memory): >> And here is what Rich Colker, Appeals Administrator of the ACBL had >> to say in the Orlando NABC casebook: >> ********* >> "...the WBF Laws Committee's pronouncements are not binding on the >> ACBL for events under the ACBL's sponsorship. >> +=+ I am aware of the ACBL's position and have sympathy when the ACBL, as an NCBO, wishes to be master in its own house for national competitions. I favour a sleeping dogs approach to that. But I do not think that an Administrative Zone of the WBF, such as Zone 2, can over-ride the By-Laws of the parent body of which it is a limb - and I would feel a Zonal Organization established under the Constitution of the WBF could be in difficulty if it were to suggest it had a legal basis for going its own way. There is an element of confusion in that this NCBO and this Zone are both commonly referred to as 'the ACBL', and the two hats are not hung on separate pegs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 09:01:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:01:17 +1100 (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 JAA08699 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:01:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.41] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11lfnR-0005UN-00; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:00:53 +0000 Message-ID: <001301bf2bc7$075d3b20$295108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:49:49 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 November 1999 19:13 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >English pronunciation leans too far in the feminine direction. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > +=+ Absurd. How can you lean too far in that direction? +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 09:01:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:01:18 +1100 (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 JAA08701 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:01:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.41] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11lfnT-0005UN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:00:55 +0000 Message-ID: <001501bf2bc7$08c556a0$295108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:36:22 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 November 1999 15:41 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> >+=+ A player is not required to find h(**) >> >> If people wish to use a pronoun that covers both sexes some use the >> term "s/he". Recently I read that the equivalent adjective [what is the >> right word: I forget] > +=+ Incredible. Are we to have 79 posts on this triviality? Did everyone understand what I wrote? - if so, good enough. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 10:06:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:06:50 +1100 (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 KAA09117 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:06:41 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA27800 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:06:04 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:06 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Authority 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: <001401bf2bc7$082e46c0$295108c3@swhki5i6> Grattan wrote: > +=+ I am aware of the ACBL's position and have sympathy when > the ACBL, as an NCBO, wishes to be master in its own house > for national competitions. I favour a sleeping dogs approach > to that. But I do not think that an Administrative Zone of the > WBF, such as Zone 2, can over-ride the By-Laws of the parent > body of which it is a limb - and I would feel a Zonal > Organization established under the Constitution of the WBF > could be in difficulty if it were to suggest it had a legal basis > for going its own way. > There is an element of confusion in that this NCBO and this > Zone are both commonly referred to as 'the ACBL', and the > two hats are not hung on separate pegs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Oh my god!!!!! Just when you finally have me convinced that WBFLC interpretations *are* binding on NCBOs you now tell me this is not the case. I weep, I scream, and, but for my sensitivity to pain, I tear out my hair. Tim West-Meads Hmm.. multiple exclamation marks - a sure sign of insanity. (Terry Pratchet) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 11:23:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:23:55 +1100 (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 LAA09448 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:23:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveid8.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.168]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA12713 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:23:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991110192052.0132fed0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:20:52 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <001301bf2bc7$075d3b20$295108c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:49 PM 11/10/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >>English pronunciation leans too far in the feminine direction. >> >>Marv (Marvin L. French) >> >+=+ Absurd. How can you lean too far in that > direction? +=+ > Hir, hir! Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 11:48:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:48:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09566 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:48:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11liOo-0008mR-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:47:39 +0000 Message-ID: <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:16:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@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: >I'm not asking you to admit that you are, or even could possibly be, wrong. >But you have refused even to acknowledge that serious, qualified people >(that is, other than me) have doubts about your interpretation. Your great >and good friend took a strong public stance on the issue which he _never >retracted_. The editor of one of the world's leading bridge journals >disagrees with your view. In our own forum, Jesper, Tim, and Steve have all >offered at least qualified support for the arguments I have advanced. Remember that some of us are not against you because of anything the WBF LC has said: not against you because anything Edgar or Grattan has said. The reason that I am absolutely and strongly against your position is that I love the game of bridge which I have played for 35 years and I have a horror of people communicating to their partner by other than legal means - and I always tend to assume everyone else shares that horror. I am shocked that you would allow communication however limited and however rare and however justified on any other semantic grounds. -- 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 Thu Nov 11 11:47:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:47:59 +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 LAA09558 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:47:50 +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 11liOo-0008mS-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:47:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:29:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Protect yourself References: <015601bf2bd1$044d5780$285f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <015601bf2bd1$044d5780$285f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >Michael Farebrother wrote: > >>As others have said, "5 hearts" tends to be synonymous with "at least >>5 hearts", unless context makes it obvious otherwise.............. >>I will admit it is a bit of a shock when the Flannery pair >>opens 2D with 4=6=x=x (once even 4-7-2-0) and explains as >>"4 spades, 5 hearts, 10-15". >This explanation of "4 spades, 5 hearts" infers that Flannery is >bid on shapes such as 5512, 4522 and 4612, but not on 5422. > >There's nothing in the context of the Flannery pair's explanation >to make it obvious that one doesn't Flannery with 5512 shape. > >I'd prefer to say "4 spades, 5 or more hearts". Many other BLML >posters take the opposite view that because "4 spades, 5 hearts" is >common practice in some parts of the world, we should condone it. Some people play Flannery as 4S's, 5H's - I know, I have seen the arguments on RGB. If people say 4S's, 5H's, knowing that some people mean this literally, and they don't, do they not have an expectation of being ruled against? A lot of people play bridge. Many are a bit casual. Whether such casualness amounts to MI does depend on such things as expectation. In a situation where some people mean 4S's, 5H's when they say 4S's, 5H's then it is MI to say 4S's, 5H's when they mean something else, like 4S's, 5+H's. On the other hand the expectation is different in different situations. If you ask about an opening 1H and your opponent says "It shows five hearts" do you assume it cannot have six hearts? No, I thought not. When we rule on MI we must take into account the accepted casualness with which the language is used. There is also the question of protecting yourself. If your opponent says 2D shows 4S's, 5H's and you really need to know whether 6H's is possible it would be not unreasonable to ask a supplementary question. You should not have to? True, but let us have a little tolerance. -- 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 Thu Nov 11 13:00:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:00:11 +1100 (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 MAA09740 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 12:59:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehrl.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.117]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA21054 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:59:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:56:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:16 PM 11/10/99 +0000, David S wrote: > Remember that some of us are not against you because of anything the >WBF LC has said: not against you because anything Edgar or Grattan has >said. > > The reason that I am absolutely and strongly against your position is >that I love the game of bridge which I have played for 35 years and I >have a horror of people communicating to their partner by other than >legal means - and I always tend to assume everyone else shares that >horror. I am shocked that you would allow communication however limited >and however rare and however justified on any other semantic grounds. > But it isn't just me. Disagree however strongly you like with respect to the present debate, but you must acknowledge that the Laws allow communication other than through bids and plays in a number of specific instances. As dummy, you can call partner's attention to a pending possible revoke, and may, subject to SO regulation, enjoy the same right as defender. If partner errs while reviewing the auction, you have not merely the right but the duty to correct him. Such communications serve important values in the game, and it is my contention that the "communication" in question can reasonably be seen in exactly the same light. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 13:05:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:05:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09768 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:05:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:05:01 -0800 Message-ID: <001601bf2be9$28fff2a0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6><1QHGQOBSnMK4Ewv6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110162443.006a57f8@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Pronouns for persons of unspecified gender Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:04:56 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > (2) Use "he or she"/"him or her"... This is perfect grammar by anyone's > standard, but I find it rather pedantic. > "She or he"/'her or him" is also perfect grammar. Why should the male come first all the time? That reminds me of Justin Wilson, a Cajun cook on TV, who will give measurements such as "three or two cloves of garlic." Nothing wrong with that! Marv (Marvin L. French) Three daughters, no son From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 13:52:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:52:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09935 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:51:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from p65s05a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.85.102] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ljss-0000Qu-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:22:47 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:23:47 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2beb$c8dd04a0$665593c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:18 AM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > The reason that I am absolutely and strongly against your position is >that I love the game of bridge which I have played for 35 years and I >have a horror of people communicating to their partner by other than >legal means - and I always tend to assume everyone else shares that >horror. I am shocked that you would allow communication however limited >and however rare and however justified on any other semantic grounds. Hir:Hir and while I'm about it, let's get rid of the PC attitude to females. The feminist lobby is loud enough elsewhere. Ugly was a word used to describe opinion in another thread. IMO "ugly" is a word that can be used to describe the lobby itself any many of it's advocates. It does us (women; ladies; females; gals etc., etc.,) no favours. Much better that Grattan should bend over backwards to keep us happy:-)) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 14:06:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:06:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt (fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt [194.65.5.201]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09999 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:06:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.telepac.pt ([194.65.206.150]) by fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail v4.01.01.02 201-229-111-106) with ESMTP id <19991111030215.CQTY10720.fep02-svc@mail.telepac.pt> for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:02:15 +0000 Message-ID: <382A3287.BE4B53B8@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:05:43 +0000 From: Lino =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tralh=E3o?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: pt,en,fr,es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Same directions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi What to do if both teams of a match played all boards in the same directions, i. e. both pairs of team A played in NS in open and closed room, and both pairs of team B played in EO. In my opinion: 1 - Both teams are responsible (offenders) for this error 2 - Applying Laws 12C1 and 86A it should be assigned to both teams the artificial result of -3 IMP in each board of the match. However, this solution implies different results (in Victory Points) for different amounts of boards to be played in the match. For example, for 8 boards matches the result after an error of this kind will be 7 - 7 VPs (-3 * 8 = - 24 IMP ===> 23 -7 VP), but for 16 boards matchs the result after the same error would be 4 - 4 VP (-3 * 16 = -48 IMP ===> 25-4. Is this correct ? Opinions please L. Tralhao From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 15:16:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:16:14 +1100 (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 PAA10232 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:16:05 +1100 (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 11lleN-000Ko3-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 04:15:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 04:15:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Same directions In-Reply-To: <382A3287.BE4B53B8@mail.telepac.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <382A3287.BE4B53B8@mail.telepac.pt>, =?iso- 8859-1?q?Lino_Tralh=E3o?= writes >Hi > > What to do if both teams of a match played all boards in the same >directions, i. e. both pairs of team A played in NS in open and closed >room, and both pairs of team B played in EO. In my opinion: > 1 - Both teams are responsible (offenders) for this error > 2 - Applying Laws 12C1 and 86A it should be assigned to both >teams the artificial result of -3 IMP in each board of the match. > > However, this solution implies different results (in Victory Points) >for different amounts of boards to be played in the match. For >example, for 8 boards matches the result after an error of this kind >will be 7 - 7 VPs (-3 * 8 = - 24 IMP ===> 23 -7 VP), but for 16 boards >matchs the result after the same error would be 4 - 4 VP (-3 * 16 = -48 >IMP ===> 25-4. > > Is this correct ? are you using the correct VP scale for 8 board and 16 board matches? It looks like you are, tho'. Because VP scales are a function of the square root of the number of boards played I'm not surprised that you get these results. > > Opinions please > > L. Tralhao For matches where no bridge is played one can assign a score based on VPs alone. In this specific case the EBU has a regulation that awards 8/20, and other figures for other scales. It is based on a concept of 40%/40% - both sides entirely at fault. 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 Nov 11 16:19:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:19:35 +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 QAA10443 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:19:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-28-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.28]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id AAA05191; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:18:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991111000624.0086a330@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:06:24 -0500 To: Lino =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tralh=E3o?= , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Same directions In-Reply-To: <382A3287.BE4B53B8@mail.telepac.pt> 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 QAA10445 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:05 AM 11/11/99 +0000, Lino Tralhão wrote: > What to do if both teams of a match played all boards in the same >directions, i. e. both pairs of team A played in NS in open and closed >room, and both pairs of team B played in EO. In my opinion: > 1 - Both teams are responsible (offenders) for this error > 2 - Applying Laws 12C1 and 86A it should be assigned to both >teams the artificial result of -3 IMP in each board of the match. The ACBL has an official policy for this happening in a Swiss; both teams forfeit the match (receiving zero VP's), and for future matching purposes, they have not played each other. This is in the ACBL Swiss Teams General Conditions of Contest. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 17:24:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:24:22 +1100 (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 RAA10762 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:24:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 01:16:16 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 01:21:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ++++ "I am only an egg." -- Valentine Michael Smith, in Robert Heinlein's _Stranger in a Strange Land_. ++++ Just got my latest ACBL Bulletin, and I'm "some perplexed" by Jon Brissman's latest column ("Appeals: My View"). So I thought I'd ask here if the case makes sense to you all. :-) It's a Board-A-Match, West, in third seat, not vulnerable, holds: S Q4 H AT8 D JT62 C 7653 The bidding goes: E S W N P 1C P 1S 2H 2NT West asked, and 2NT was explained as "18-19 HCP". West passes, and N bids 3NT, ending the auction. West leads the 8 of hearts, and declarer wins the singleton king in dummy, takes 6 clubs in hand and the AK of diamonds, making his contract. The four hands were: S KJ53 H K D K985 C Q8 S Q4 S AT87 H AT8 H QJ7632 D JT62 D Q3 C 7653 C 2 S 96 H 954 D A7 C AKJT94 E/W call the Director. W says he would have led HA if he'd received a correct explanation of North/South's agreement. The TD finds that S had meant 2NT as "good/bad", but that, while N and S had discussed it, they had not agreed to play it "in this situation". Ruling: result stands. I understand this, I think. The TD is saying that since N/S had not agreed that good/bad applied here, "18-19-HCP" was a correct explanation of the partnership agreement. Mistaken bid, rather than mistaken explanation. Now comes my problem. E/W appealed, and the screening director changed the ruling to 3NT-3, on the grounds, as I understand it, that S failed to disclose his partner's failure to alert 2NT, and that he further failed to correct his partner's mistaken explanation prior to the opening lead. I infer that the screening director decided that N/S _had_ agreed that 2NT in this situation would be good/bad, but the article doesn't say so, or say on what basis the TD made his determination. The AC upheld this ruling, saying that "the disclosure requirement applies even if the player recognizes that he and his partner have different ideas about whether a convention may be used in a particular situation." It seems to me that a case could be made that S _thought_ they'd agreed to play "good/.bad" here, but that N's failure to alert woke him up to the fact they hadn't. Yet if one accepts that argument, the AC ruling says that he would have had to disclose what was _in fact_ a mistaken bid, not a mistaken explanation. This is where I get confused. It seems the committee are saying that any discussion of a convention constitutes an agreement to play that convention, at least if there's confusion between the partners as to when they've agreed to play it. The article also says that, had the table ruling been 3NT-3, and had N/S been the original appellants, the committee would have adjuged the appeal "meritless". I think that's a little harsh, unless at some point S admitted that he _knew_ that the problem was disagreement as to when the convention applied, and not a failure on the part of one player or another to remember whether it applied at all. Am I all wet? Aside: when I was in the Navy, I was taught how to do a "JAGMAN" investigation. This is an investigation into the facts of what happened in some incident (like, say, a grounding, or a gun turret blowing up). I was taught that a proper report lists, one by one, _all_ the pertinent facts, and then, in another section, may list any _opinions_ the investigator derives from those facts. Then it lists conclusions, clearly separating those which depend only on facts from those which depend in any way on opinions. Perhaps it would be useful if TDs and ACs had some similar guidance, and if there were some standard format for publishing the results of their deliberations. Does anyone here think that's a worthwhile goal? If so, any suggestions on how to pursue it? :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBOCpg/r2UW3au93vOEQJoCwCgw26Pewfepuq5E3rzDD4PsFHcEaAAoNXc AUevuhPFeBHmwbyRpdDVdJRC =/UR0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 18:58:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:58:37 +1100 (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 SAA11386 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:58:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.173] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11lp7S-000KZZ-00; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:58:10 +0000 Message-ID: <003401bf2c1a$785a0300$ad5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Asking For Authority Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:35:55 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: 10 November 1999 23:44 Subject: Re: Asking For Authority >In-Reply-To: <001401bf2bc7$082e46c0$295108c3@swhki5i6> >Grattan wrote: >> +=+ I am aware of the ACBL's position and have sympathy when >> the ACBL, as an NCBO, wishes to be master in its own house >> for national competitions. I favour a sleeping dogs approach >> to that > >Oh my god!!!!! Just when you finally have me convinced that WBFLC >interpretations *are* binding on NCBOs you now tell me this is not the >case > +=+ Let us be clear; my position is that NCBOs that are members of the WBF have contracted to conform to the Constitution and By-Laws of this body. They have undertaken to apply the decisions of the WBFLC made as those By-Laws require of it. But not every breach of contract needs be pursued and my judgement is that it would do harm rather than good to the game to enter into a confrontation with the ACBL on the issue; I believe it better to seek a concordance through dialogue, persuasion, compromise. If you believe it inappropriate when the WBF fails to demand fulfilment of contract, notwithstanding all else, it is your privilege to do so - we must each assess how the game is best served and we stand up to be counted for our beliefs. I do feel, however, that there are some who post to blml whose arguments are simply bridge-lawyering; since I do not hold back my opinions, you will note at times the curl of my lip. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 18:58:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:58:36 +1100 (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 SAA11387 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:58:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.173] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11lp7T-000KZZ-00; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:58:12 +0000 Message-ID: <003501bf2c1a$79236d80$ad5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:50:15 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 November 1999 01:36 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>I'm not asking you to admit that you are, or even could possibly be, wrong. >>But you have refused even to acknowledge that serious, qualified people >>(that is, other than me) have doubts about your interpretation. . > > Remember that some of us are not against you because of anything the >WBF LC has said: not against you because anything Edgar or Grattan has >said. > > The reason that I am absolutely and strongly against your position is >that I love the game of bridge >-- +=+ And my reason is not that Michael has no right to make the argument; it is that he does not say "this should be the law", he says "this is the law" when there is an authoritative ruling that says it is not. And he persists, in my belief just for the sake of debating. Actually I would think he, too, loves the game, is possibly obsessed with it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 18:58:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:58:38 +1100 (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 SAA11390 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:58:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.173] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11lp7V-000KZZ-00; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:58:13 +0000 Message-ID: <003601bf2c1a$79eb5160$ad5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:57:04 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 November 1999 06:48 Subject: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin >Aside: when I was in the Navy, I was taught how to do a "JAGMAN" >investigation. This is an investigation into the facts of what happened in >some incident (like, say, a grounding, or a gun turret blowing up). I was >taught that a proper report lists, one by one, _all_ the pertinent facts, >and then, in another section, may list any _opinions_ the investigator >derives from those facts. Then it lists conclusions, clearly separating >those which depend only on facts from those which depend in any way on >opinions. Perhaps it would be useful if TDs and ACs had some similar >guidance, and if there were some standard format for publishing the results >of their deliberations. Does anyone here think that's a worthwhile goal? If >so, any suggestions on how to pursue it? :-) > =+= An orderly approach? What next? Putting on the hat of Servant of the CoP Group I will note the thought since I could imagine some addition eventually to the CoP. ~ Grattan ~ =+= From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 20:47:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:47:27 +1100 (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 UAA12269 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:47:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:47:01 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA08898 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:58:39 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Incorrect Quitted Trick Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:44:33 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > >> > >>Declarer played the heart four to his Jack but in quitting this > trick > >>dummy turned down the heart King and apparently noone noticed this > >>irregularity. > >> > > > >This case is exactly described in L45D - dummy played a card which > >declarer did not name. This can be corrected until both sides played > >to the next trick. Since declarer woke up much later than that, > nothing > >can be done anymore, and the result stands. The heart king in fact > >replaced the heart four after both sides played to the next trick. > > I wondered about this - but it is not what happened, is it? Dummy > played the correct card - and then turned down the wrong one. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > Not so evident for me too. Law45D says : "If dummy places in the > played position a card that declarer did not name, ..." > Here, dummy placed "in the played position" the card named by > declarer, but quitted an other one. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City I gave it a little thought, and I think you both are right. Well, then there is only one option. Since the king of hearts was never played, it still belongs to dummy, visible or not. The trick where the small heart was played is therefore in fact defective, since the small heart had already been played. The king of hearts is then restored to dummy's hand, the small heart restored to the trick it belonged to, and one of dummy's cards must be added to the defective trick. Since dummy cannot follow to this trick, he is also deemed to have revoked, but this has no consequence since he is dummy (L67B1b, L64B3). That would mean that the score must be corrected to 3S-1. Whether declarer pitched a heart in the defective trick or something else does not matter; declarer may complete the trick with any legal card from dummy, which in this case is every card. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 11 21:35:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 21:35:00 +1100 (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 VAA12643 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 21:34:51 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA07401 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:34:12 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:34 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Authority 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: <003401bf2c1a$785a0300$ad5108c3@swhki5i6> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Let us be clear; my position is that NCBOs > that are members of the WBF have contracted > to conform to the Constitution and By-Laws of > this body. They have undertaken to apply the > decisions of the WBFLC made as those By-Laws > require of it. But not every breach of > contract needs be pursued and my judgement > is that it would do harm rather than good to > the game to enter into a confrontation with > the ACBL on the issue; I believe it better to > seek a concordance through dialogue, > persuasion, compromise. If you believe it > inappropriate when the WBF fails to demand > fulfilment of contract, notwithstanding all > else, it is your privilege to do so - we must > each assess how the game is best served > and we stand up to be counted for our beliefs. > I do feel, however, that there are some who > post to blml whose arguments are simply > bridge-lawyering; since I do not hold back my > opinions, you will note at times the curl of my > lip. I too believe it would be better for NCBOs to 'have the option' on WBF Interpretations (though not on the actual lawbook). Dialogue is generally more appropriate than force. However, I do not think this approach is an option with the constitution currently in place. The EC, British, French and German governments are currently having their credibility and authority undermined by a similar constitutional row over beef. This is damaging all those involved. Put simply. If you have a constitution you abide by it - if you can't abide by it you change it. If you do neither then make no further claims at authority. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 00:00:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:00:43 +1100 (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 AAA13458 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:00:35 +1100 (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 11ltpx-0002gV-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:00:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 12:05:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Same directions References: <382A3287.BE4B53B8@mail.telepac.pt> <3.0.6.32.19991111000624.0086a330@mail.wcnet.org> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991111000624.0086a330@mail.wcnet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.19991111000624.0086a330@mail.wcnet.org>, David J. Grabiner writes >At 03:05 AM 11/11/99 +0000, Lino Tralhão wrote: > >> What to do if both teams of a match played all boards in the same >>directions, i. e. both pairs of team A played in NS in open and closed >>room, and both pairs of team B played in EO. In my opinion: >> 1 - Both teams are responsible (offenders) for this error >> 2 - Applying Laws 12C1 and 86A it should be assigned to both >>teams the artificial result of -3 IMP in each board of the match. > >The ACBL has an official policy for this happening in a Swiss; both teams >forfeit the match (receiving zero VP's), and for future matching purposes, >they have not played each other. > >This is in the ACBL Swiss Teams General Conditions of Contest. > > > > > Far too generous Off with their heads They won't do that again Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 00:36:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:36:09 +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 AAA13684 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:36:00 +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 11luO5-000K8A-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:35:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 01:28:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <1QHGQOBSnMK4Ewv6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <019801bf2bab$d19702c0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <019801bf2bab$d19702c0$622ed2cc@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: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> >+=+ A player is not required to find h(**) >> >> If people wish to use a pronoun that covers both sexes some use the >> term "s/he". Recently I read that the equivalent adjective [what is the >> right word: I forget] should be "hir" [for "his/her"]. I quite like >> that. >> >I've been tempted to use the ugly "hizzer" (a slurred his/her) as the >possessive pronoun, but will take "hir" under consideration, provided that >when spoken it is pronounced in the German/Spanish fashion ("hear"). The >English pronunciation leans too far in the feminine direction. Yes, I agree with that: let it be pronounced "hear". -- 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 Nov 12 00:36:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:36:09 +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 AAA13685 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:36:01 +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 11luO5-000K8B-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:35:42 +0000 Message-ID: <0g3NvMANzhK4Ew9m@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 01:33:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <001501bf2bc7$08c556a0$295108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <001501bf2bc7$08c556a0$295108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> >+=+ A player is not required to find h(**) >>> >>> If people wish to use a pronoun that covers both sexes some use the >>> term "s/he". Recently I read that the equivalent adjective [what is the >>> right word: I forget] >+=+ Incredible. Are we to have 79 posts >on this triviality? Did everyone understand >what I wrote? - if so, good enough. ~ G ~ +=+ Funnily enough, we have posts on what we want to have posts on. Some light hearted posts are *necessary* at this particular time. IMO, of course. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 00:36:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:36:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA13696 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:36:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11luO5-000K8C-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:35:43 +0000 Message-ID: <4gyO$RAZ4hK4EwcT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 01:38:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Protect yourself References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian D Crorie wrote: > > >[lines deleted] > >[Me] >> >Oh, you want a decision. I'd give the declarer his contract if he >> >discarded on the 3rd diamond and it was ruffed. > >[Peter Gill] >> That's not what I'd do. My answer is that David Burn's posting >> provides insufficient information to provide a ruling. >> >> I'd try to establish whether East's explanation was correct and West's >> call was a mild *psyche*. >> >> I'd ask EW about documentation of their agreements. As I can't do this >[lines deleted] > > >Of course Peter is right. I had made the assumption that we'd >established that the EW methods were 2 spades & 5 PLUS hearts and that >the explanation was wrong, but in a mailing list about the Laws such >assumptions should be made explicit. > >It seems that the general point David Burn wanted us to consider has >been ignored, perhaps for the very good reason that it's a can of >worms. To what extent should a player be expected to protect him/her >self from a possible incorrect/incomplete/misleading explanation? > >I remember a local case some years ago. I may misremember some >details but that's not important. The auction was the common: > > 1C 1S Dbl ? > >where the double wasn't alerted as required by local alert rules and >4th seat had around an eight count and HTx in spades. He didn't raise >and didn't get an adjustment later when the double turned out to have >been negative. It was clear there was damage but the TD's view, >and that of a majority of his peers, was that he should have protected >himself by asking (no CCs were available but let's ignore that aspect >for now as a side issue). > >I've always felt uneasy about it. What happens if you ask and discover >that it is indeed penalty? Is your LHO not now in a position where >a pull is more attractive, since your question strongly suggests >you were thinking of raising? Or might it jog his memory if he has >not alerted because he has forgotten the system? If you ask, discover >it is a penalty double and pass, information arising from the question >is UI for partner and may give him a problem on borderline hands. >And all because we are expected to protect ourselves from a possible >incorrect explanation by an *opponent*. The EBU regulation is carefully worded. Unlike the equivalent ACBL regulation, which suggests you should be asking, the EBU regulation requires you to ask unless it puts your side's interests at risk. Thus an argument such as you present, if accepted by the TD or AC, should be enough to get you an adjustment in England or Wales. However, there is no equivalent regulation in the current SBU handbook, so I cannot answer for Scotland. -- 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 Nov 12 01:10:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:10:04 +1100 (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 BAA13953 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:09:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 64054 invoked by uid 65534); 11 Nov 1999 14:09:14 -0000 Message-ID: <19991111140914.64053.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.166.43] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:08:54 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 5:43 PM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > In-Reply-To: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > There is a Law which is ambiguous [since you and one other read it to > > mean different things]. > > > > An authority who has a right to interpret wherever you are playing > > bridge makes the interpretation that disagrees with yours. > > > > Do you now believe you have a right to follow your interpretation > > still? > > Yes. I see interpretations as analogous to case law. They set a degree > of precedent but where circumstances differ a new interpretation becomes > necessary. Were it to come before a judge (as it were) who ruled the new > circumstances sufficiently similar to the previous case that the precedent > held I would expect to be found guilty (I would not expect to have my > ethics questioned). I think it is a wise government, as say in the case of Bridge, that studies the relevant activity and draws conclusions as to how best to proceed, thereby setting the standard. It then spreads the word far and wide. Against this standard rules are constructed. And when the rules are infracted in such a way that the remedy provided by the rules conflicts with the standard, the conflict can be seen in the comparison, and resolved to reflect the standard. To do so tends to avoid the patchwork of extending precedent to places not so desirable. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 01:17:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA14012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:17:46 +1100 (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 BAA14007 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:17:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:17:11 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA10723 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:25:59 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Same directions Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:11:50 +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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: >In article <3.0.6.32.19991111000624.0086a330@mail.wcnet.org>, David J. >Grabiner writes >>At 03:05 AM 11/11/99 +0000, Lino Tralhão wrote: >> >>> What to do if both teams of a match played all boards in the same >>>directions, i. e. both pairs of team A played in NS in open and closed >>>room, and both pairs of team B played in EO. In my opinion: >>> 1 - Both teams are responsible (offenders) for this error >>> 2 - Applying Laws 12C1 and 86A it should be assigned to both >>>teams the artificial result of -3 IMP in each board of the match. >> >>The ACBL has an official policy for this happening in a Swiss; both teams >>forfeit the match (receiving zero VP's), and for future matching purposes, >>they have not played each other. >> >>This is in the ACBL Swiss Teams General Conditions of Contest. >> > >Far too generous > >Off with their heads > >They won't do that again > >Mike >-- >michael amos Nor will they do anything else for that matter... Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 01:46:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:03:14 +1100 (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 BAA13901 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:02:54 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id vVPNa18732 (4211); Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:02:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.3dbe8f56.255c2658@aol.com> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:02:00 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Authority To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/11/99 5:38:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk writes: > The EC, > British, French and German governments are currently having > their credibility and authority undermined by a similar constitutional row > over beef. Thanks for lightening up the subject. Do you remember the TV ad in the USA where the little old lady says "Where's the beef?" Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 03:29:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:29:05 +1100 (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 DAA14952 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:28:50 +1100 (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 LAA17007; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:28:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA079777707; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:28:28 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA202987706; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:28:26 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:28:13 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Incorrect Quitted Trick Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, martin@spase.nl 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 DAA14953 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > >> > >>Declarer played the heart four to his Jack but in quitting this > trick > >>dummy turned down the heart King and apparently noone noticed this > >>irregularity. > >> > > > >This case is exactly described in L45D - dummy played a card which > >declarer did not name. This can be corrected until both sides played > >to the next trick. Since declarer woke up much later than that, > nothing > >can be done anymore, and the result stands. The heart king in fact > >replaced the heart four after both sides played to the next trick. > > I wondered about this - but it is not what happened, is it? Dummy > played the correct card - and then turned down the wrong one. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > Not so evident for me too. Law45D says : "If dummy places in the > played position a card that declarer did not name, ..." > Here, dummy placed "in the played position" the card named by > declarer, but quitted an other one. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City I gave it a little thought, and I think you both are right. Well, then there is only one option. Since the king of hearts was never played, it still belongs to dummy, visible or not. The trick where the small heart was played is therefore in fact defective, since the small heart had already been played. The king of hearts is then restored to dummy's hand, the small heart restored to the trick it belonged to, and one of dummy's cards must be added to the defective trick. Since dummy cannot follow to this trick, he is also deemed to have revoked, but this has no consequence since he is dummy (L67B1b, L64B3). That would mean that the score must be corrected to 3S-1. Whether declarer pitched a heart in the defective trick or something else does not matter; declarer may complete the trick with any legal card from dummy, which in this case is every card. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl [Laval Dubreuil] This is the road I should have explore. Laval Du Breuil From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 03:30:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:30:46 +1100 (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 DAA14980 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:30:38 +1100 (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 11lx79-000KVZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:30:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:39:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <01bf2beb$c8dd04a0$665593c3@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf2beb$c8dd04a0$665593c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >It does >us (women; ladies; females; gals etc., etc.,) no favours. Much better >that Grattan should bend over backwards to keep us happy:-)) Well, that has solved my next sigfile after Quango's birthday has passed! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 03:30:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA14991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:30:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA14981 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:30:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11lx79-000KVY-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:30:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:38:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@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 03:16 PM 11/10/99 +0000, David S wrote: >> Remember that some of us are not against you because of anything the >>WBF LC has said: not against you because anything Edgar or Grattan has >>said. >> >> The reason that I am absolutely and strongly against your position is >>that I love the game of bridge which I have played for 35 years and I >>have a horror of people communicating to their partner by other than >>legal means - and I always tend to assume everyone else shares that >>horror. I am shocked that you would allow communication however limited >>and however rare and however justified on any other semantic grounds. >> >But it isn't just me. Disagree however strongly you like with respect to >the present debate, but you must acknowledge that the Laws allow >communication other than through bids and plays in a number of specific >instances. As dummy, you can call partner's attention to a pending possible >revoke, and may, subject to SO regulation, enjoy the same right as >defender. If partner errs while reviewing the auction, you have not merely >the right but the duty to correct him. > >Such communications serve important values in the game, and it is my >contention that the "communication" in question can reasonably be seen in >exactly the same light. I said "other than legal means". You have quoted two situations where the Laws specifically give you a right to communicate. Thus these are legal means. -- 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 Nov 12 03:31:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:31:02 +1100 (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 DAA14992 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:30:49 +1100 (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 11lx7F-000KVX-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:30:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:53:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Same directions References: <382A3287.BE4B53B8@mail.telepac.pt> In-Reply-To: <382A3287.BE4B53B8@mail.telepac.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id DAA15004 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Lino Tralhão wrote: > What to do if both teams of a match played all boards in the same >directions, i. e. both pairs of team A played in NS in open and closed >room, and both pairs of team B played in EO. In my opinion: > 1 - Both teams are responsible (offenders) for this error > 2 - Applying Laws 12C1 and 86A it should be assigned to both >teams the artificial result of -3 IMP in each board of the match. > > However, this solution implies different results (in Victory Points) >for different amounts of boards to be played in the match. For >example, for 8 boards matches the result after an error of this kind >will be 7 - 7 VPs (-3 * 8 = - 24 IMP ===> 23 -7 VP), but for 16 boards >matchs the result after the same error would be 4 - 4 VP (-3 * 16 = -48 >IMP ===> 25-4. > > Is this correct ? It is not unreasonable, and certainly legal. However, it is not unreasonable to have a specific regulation covering this particular happening - after all it is not that rare! You are not going to have occurrences with different number of boards in the same event, so any decision you make will be consistent for that event. -3 imps on every board is a bit strong, perhaps. The EBU regulation is: 80.16.4 Incorrect seating in a teams game, such that an entire stanza or match is made void Note if the incorrect seating at one table is identified before team-mates play the same boards, this error is easily rectified without cause to penalise either team. If time permits, the stanza or match must be replayed forthwith in which case neither team is penalised. If time does not permit the replay of the stanza/match, then: b) in a tournament scored by victory points, both teams obtain: 8 VPs on a 20 to 0 scale 4.5 VPs on a 12 to 0 scale 4 VPs on a 10 to 0 scale 7.5 VPs on a 20 to minus 3 or minus 5 scale 12.5 VPs on a European Bridge League 25 to 0 scale etc. -- 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 Nov 12 03:57:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:57:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f145.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.145]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA15133 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:57:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 89254 invoked by uid 0); 11 Nov 1999 16:56:21 -0000 Message-ID: <19991111165621.89253.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:56:21 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:56:21 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Peter Gill wrote: > >Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > >>I will admit it is a bit of a shock when the Flannery pair > >>opens 2D with 4=6=x=x (once even 4-7-2-0) and explains as > >>"4 spades, 5 hearts, 10-15". > > >This explanation of "4 spades, 5 hearts" infers that Flannery is > >bid on shapes such as 5512, 4522 and 4612, but not on 5422. > > Given the reason for Flannery, I would be outraged if they opened on any 5=5=1=2 less lopsided than 96542 AKJT5 A6 8 (ok, maybe JT854 AKT95 A6 7). I'm only mildly disgruntled when it's 4=6. > >There's nothing in the context of the Flannery pair's explanation > >to make it obvious that one doesn't Flannery with 5512 shape. > > > >I'd prefer to say "4 spades, 5 or more hearts". Many other BLML > >posters take the opposite view that because "4 spades, 5 hearts" is > >common practice in some parts of the world, we should condone it. > The problem is, with that latter view (and in the current situation) what if you do play it specifically as 4=5, no more, no less? How do you make that clear to opponents? > Some people play Flannery as 4S's, 5H's - I know, I have seen the >arguments on RGB. If people say 4S's, 5H's, knowing that some people >mean this literally, and they don't, do they not have an expectation >of >being ruled against? > I don't know. That's why I raised the point :-). > There is also the question of protecting yourself. If your opponent >says 2D shows 4S's, 5H's and you really need to know whether 6H's is >possible it would be not unreasonable to ask a supplementary question. You >should not have to? True, but let us have a little tolerance. > Ok, now I go back to those famous "club players" of yours. I went 4 years as a player, including having read Flannery's own 3-page description on the convention, before I met my first pair that played it as 4=6 possible (Ok, the first time I ran across it at the table, anyway). Even then, I was not the "poor(as in baby, not as in bad) club player". Protect myself? How should I know? The last hundred Flannery calls I saw, and the "author"itative description I read, were all 4=5 exactly. This part of full disclosure needs to be explained, through force, if necessary, at the club level. It is my experience that it is the "poor club players" that often have those "little misses" in full disclosure. And it never seems to hurt them when it comes up... Michael. P.S. More on silly mail games - your reply got to me about 10 messages before Peter's - who last I checked was in Australia... P.P.S. Happy Birthday to Quango - and memories to all those (of all nations) who, due to war, will not see another birthday. mdf ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 04:30:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 04:30:33 +1100 (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 EAA15341 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 04:30:26 +1100 (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 11ly34-000D6F-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:30:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:27:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > I said "other than legal means". You have quoted two situations where >the Laws specifically give you a right to communicate. Thus these are >legal means. > My own feeling wrt this thread is that one should *not* in any circumstance ask a question for partner's benefit. This comes not from any consideration of UI, or known MI by the opponents, but because, whatever the intent, it means that we have to scratch another mark and decide whether it has been overstepped. To me the Law is clear in this matter. Perhaps in the UK we are luckier than most because we can reasonably rely on the TD to protect us where appropriate. The example I have in mind is playing with my 16 yr-old son, Stephen, who plays a little bridge (quite well) but is very unsophisticated with his bidding. There are times when I know he would defend better, if he knew what the auction meant. I still stay shtumm. Perhaps one day he'll ask of his own volition. 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 Nov 12 05:31:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 05:31:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f58.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA15665 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 05:31:16 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 42353 invoked by uid 0); 11 Nov 1999 18:30:38 -0000 Message-ID: <19991111183038.42352.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:30:38 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:30:38 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Anne Jones" [much more fun to take this out of context] >Much better that Grattan should bend over backwards to keep us happy:-)) > Right. Now who has the list's 3m (10-foot) pole? I want to borrow it so I can not touch this one with it... Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 06:15:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:15:50 +1100 (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 GAA15938 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:15:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-249.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.249]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA05578 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:15:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003701bf2c79$6264c760$f984d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Pronouns for persons of unspecified gender Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:17:22 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well since you have raised the issue again... -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 4:38 PM Subject: Pronouns for persons of unspecified gender >We seem to be back to this issue, which I have managed to avoid in previous >go-arounds. It has nothing to do with bridge or bridge laws, so I expect >most of you will feel free to delete this message without reading further. >For those who are interested, I wrote an essay on the subject some years >back, which was reproduced in part in the archives of alt.usage.english >(and is probably still available from Deja News); what follows is a brief >summary. > >There are six approaches to the problem which have been taken by various >authors: > >(1) Use "he"/"him"/"his"[/etc.]. These forms can legimately designate >either a male referent or a referent of unknown gender. This is probably >the most common approach, and remains the one favored by most >prescriptivists, who believe that it is silly to read this usage as having >any sexist implications. This is good English and indeed is non-sexist. > >Nevertheless, there are those who do see this usage as sexist, and those >who, whatever their personal view, do not wish to offend that group, and >may wish to consider other alternatives. > >(2) Use "he or she"/"him or her"... This is perfect grammar by anyone's >standard, but I find it rather pedantic. > Agreed >(3) Newly coined terms, such as "e" or "s/he"/"hir"... This approach is >particularly favored by some of the more radical feminist authors, but I >find it ugly. It also is most unclear in speech...if we were to adopt new terms, would it not be best to use ones that employ different phonemes? > >(4) Use normally plural pronouns ("they"/"them") in the singular. This has >literary antecendents back to at least Jane Austen, and is accepted by some >modern prescriptivists (RH2 cites "Everyone should do their own thing" as >an example of common and acceptable usage). This approach happens to be my >personal preference. (If someone reading this doesn't like it, I suggest >they not use it.) The argument of literary antecedents just means that some good authors took artistic licence with the language. Surely you don't mean that Huck Finn's dialect is correct English? Or that Robert Burns' is standard usage even as far south as Liverpool? This reads and sounds improper and illiterate. I not only will not use it, but will think poorly of anyone who does, much as I would of one who employed "aint" "like" "y'know" and omitted all the g's from all of his "ing's". > >(5) Strict alternation. Start with either "he"/"him" or "she"/"her", then >change to the other with each occasion to use a pronoun. This is rare, >thankfully; I find it very confusing to use different pronouns for the same >referent, and expect most readers would agree. Confusing and rather pointless. > >(6) Contextual alternation. Like (5), but change only when the referent >changes. This is much better than (5), but can still be somewhat >confusing, as the reader is likely to assume that the author intends (1) >and is referring to a female referent when using the feminine form. As well he should. -- Craig > > >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 Nov 12 06:16:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:16:32 +1100 (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 GAA15954 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:16:24 +1100 (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 OAA03788 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:16:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991111141817.007474e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:18:17 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Pronouns for persons of unspecified gender Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It has been pointed out to me by a member of BLML that my use of the phrase "radical feminist authors" in my previous post on this subject may have appeared to be derogatory or insulting to some members of the list. I certainly did not intend it as such, nor to suggest it as a description of anyone who might choose to use the new coinages associated with those authors, and apologize to anyone who may have found my use of the term offensive. The same correspondent reminds me that the usage of "s/he", as opposed to a "new non-sexist word" like "e", is not associated with feminist writings at all, but rather found its way into general usage from its origin in "legalese". Any confusion on these two points was the result of my over-hasty summarization of a longer article, in which both were far more clear. 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 Nov 12 06:38:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:38:47 +1100 (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 GAA16148 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:38:38 +1100 (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 OAA05888 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:39:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991111144034.0074890c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:40:34 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Protect yourself In-Reply-To: References: <015601bf2bd1$044d5780$285f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <015601bf2bd1$044d5780$285f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:29 PM 11/10/99 +0000, David wrote: > There is also the question of protecting yourself. If your opponent >says 2D shows 4S's, 5H's and you really need to know whether 6H's is >possible it would be not unreasonable to ask a supplementary question. >You should not have to? True, but let us have a little tolerance. David's advice, that you should be tolerant and sportsmanlike by protecting yourself in such situations even though you are not required to do so, is undoubtedly appropriate on the right side of the pond. It should be noted, though, that over here in ACBL-land it is official policy that players are expected to be aware of the amgiguity of such descriptions as "that shows four spades and five hearts", and *are* required to protect themselves in such situations by asking further, subject to losing their right to seek redress for MI if they fail to do so. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 06:46:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:46:34 +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 GAA16202 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:46:26 +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 OAA17616 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:46:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA00819 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:46:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:46:25 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911111946.OAA00819@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ And my reason is not that Michael has > no right to make the argument; it is that > he does not say "this should be the law", > he says "this is the law" when there is an > authoritative ruling that says it is not. This is not what I think Michael has said, nor is it what several others of us have agreed with. He is, I believe, saying that _the text of the laws_, read alone, appears to give the right to ask "pro questions." I am sure Grattan cannot see this because he knows what the text was supposed to say and is therefore convinced that it does say what was intended. No author can ever see the ambiguities in his own writing! I am a bit surprised at the attitude of some others. Perhaps they are blinded by knowing what the Laws ought to or must (in their opinions) say. I am astonished by the vehemence with which their views are expressed, and I can only commend Michael for his patience in the face of wholly unwarranted personal attack. Now that we have an authoritative ruling, I agree that there is no room for debate about what the current laws mean. None of us should be asking pro questions. In spite of the strongly held views against pro questions, I think the opposite viewpoint has considerable merit and is worthy of future consideration. If banning the pro question is truly desired, then it seems to me there ought to be an enforcement mechanism relating to score adjustment. Treating the matter wholly as a conduct offense (and thanks, Hirsch, for pointing out that this is what it is now) is simply too clumsy and in IMHO completely unrealistic. I dislike being placed at a disadvantage for knowing and following the laws. Finally, a matter of speculation. If Mr. Kaplan made different representations at different times, is it possible that he wished the pro question to be allowed but knew that the rest of the LC was against it? If so, might he have tried to convince the LC that the existing language clearly forbade it, knowing all the while that the language is at best ambiguous or perhaps allows it? Or is this too devious? As I say, it is entirely speculation, and I'd be grateful if someone who might have better information could comment. Would the "1990 incident" shed light on this, and can anyone provide details? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 06:47:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:47:48 +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 GAA16224 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:47:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:47:29 -0800 Message-ID: <008901bf2c7d$6ee1f720$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4gyO$RAZ4hK4EwcT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:44:50 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > Ian D Crorie wrote: > > > >It seems that the general point David Burn wanted us to consider has > >been ignored, perhaps for the very good reason that it's a can of > >worms. To what extent should a player be expected to protect him/her > >self from a possible incorrect/incomplete/misleading explanation? > > > >I remember a local case some years ago. I may misremember some > >details but that's not important. The auction was the common: > > > > 1C 1S Dbl ? > > > >where the double wasn't alerted as required by local alert rules and > >4th seat had around an eight count and HTx in spades. He didn't raise > >and didn't get an adjustment later when the double turned out to have > >been negative. It was clear there was damage but the TD's view, > >and that of a majority of his peers, was that he should have protected > >himself by asking (no CCs were available but let's ignore that aspect > >for now as a side issue). > > > >I've always felt uneasy about it. What happens if you ask and discover > >that it is indeed penalty? Is your LHO not now in a position where > >a pull is more attractive, since your question strongly suggests > >you were thinking of raising? Or might it jog his memory if he has > >not alerted because he has forgotten the system? If you ask, discover > >it is a penalty double and pass, information arising from the question > >is UI for partner and may give him a problem on borderline hands. > >And all because we are expected to protect ourselves from a possible > >incorrect explanation by an *opponent*. > > The EBU regulation is carefully worded. Unlike the equivalent ACBL > regulation, which suggests you should be asking. Not exactly, David, if we have the same regulation in mind. The ACBL Alert Procedure says, "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." Note that it does not say "protect the partnership," and that inexperienced players are not held to this standard. Penalty doubles of overcalls after a one-level natural suit opening are so rare in ACBL-land that I don't think any expert would normally be denied redress if an unAlerted penalty double caused damage. If you read the regulation carefully, an experienced or expert player must have *recognized* the failure to Alert if redress is to be denied. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 06:48:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:48:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16244 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:48:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:48:20 -0800 Message-ID: <008c01bf2c7d$8d435ec0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6><1QHGQOBSnMK4Ewv6@blakjak.demon.co.uk><019801bf2bab$d19702c0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:47:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 5:28 PM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > Marvin L. French wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> > >> >+=+ A player is not required to find h(**) > >> > >> If people wish to use a pronoun that covers both sexes some use the > >> term "s/he". Recently I read that the equivalent adjective [what is the > >> right word: I forget] should be "hir" [for "his/her"]. I quite like > >> that. > >> > >I've been tempted to use the ugly "hizzer" (a slurred his/her) as the > >possessive pronoun, but will take "hir" under consideration, provided that > >when spoken it is pronounced in the German/Spanish fashion ("hear"). The > >English pronunciation leans too far in the feminine direction. > > Yes, I agree with that: let it be pronounced "hear". > Great. That leaves s/he. "Sheehee"? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 07:00:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:00:34 +1100 (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 HAA16342 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:00:24 +1100 (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 OAA16810 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:55:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA13106 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:44:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:44:54 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199911111944.OAA13106@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: fdcrDisAvYP6/bX7mEhyoQ== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >At 03:16 PM 11/10/99 +0000, David S wrote: > >> Remember that some of us are not against you because of anything the > >>WBF LC has said: not against you because anything Edgar or Grattan has > >>said. > >> > >> The reason that I am absolutely and strongly against your position is > >>that I love the game of bridge which I have played for 35 years and I > >>have a horror of people communicating to their partner by other than > >>legal means - and I always tend to assume everyone else shares that > >>horror. I am shocked that you would allow communication however limited > >>and however rare and however justified on any other semantic grounds. > >> > >But it isn't just me. Disagree however strongly you like with respect to > >the present debate, but you must acknowledge that the Laws allow > >communication other than through bids and plays in a number of specific > >instances. As dummy, you can call partner's attention to a pending possible > >revoke, and may, subject to SO regulation, enjoy the same right as > >defender. If partner errs while reviewing the auction, you have not merely > >the right but the duty to correct him. > > > >Such communications serve important values in the game, and it is my > >contention that the "communication" in question can reasonably be seen in > >exactly the same light. > > I said "other than legal means". You have quoted two situations where > the Laws specifically give you a right to communicate. Thus these are > legal means. Wasn't the whole debate about what means *are* (or should be) legal? I don't think anybody has said "Let's allow illegal communication." Personally, I'm happy to abide by the WBF LC interpretation. But I can see merit in Mike's view of how the Laws *should* be interpreted. I *don't* think the intention of the Laws is clear from the wording of the Laws themselves. Whatever Grattan and Kojak may think or know of Kaplan's motivation in writing the (in)famous editorial, the fact is that a respected expert on the Laws promulgated to a large number of serious bridge players an interpretation of the Laws that they (G + K) believe to be fundamentally wrong. Whether or not Kaplan himself really believed in what he was writing, his arguments made a lot of sense to many intelligent people with a keen interest in the Laws. If his interpretation *is* wrong (in the opinion of the lawmakers) then the wording of the Laws should be changed to make this explicit. I have been rather bemused and saddened by the vitriolic vehemence of some of the opposition to Mike's views. At the beginning of this debate, his opinions were dismissed rudely and without counterargument (Why am I wrong? Because you're wrong!) by people I have come to respect in the past for their clear, careful and logical arguments. In his place, I would have felt offended, belittled, exasperated, and generally p***ed off. Maybe Mike has become slightly entrenched in his position. I can't say I'm surprised. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 07:16:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:16:38 +1100 (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 HAA16450 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:16:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-249.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.249]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA03481; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:16:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00b101bf2c81$d6d74a20$f984d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:17:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Might I suggest "hiser" or "hsr"which has the merit of not sounding exactly the same as "her" is speech? (Unless "hir" is to be pronounced as "hire" which seems less clear.) -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 9:07 AM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>+=+ A player is not required to find h(**) > > If people wish to use a pronoun that covers both sexes some use the >term "s/he". Recently I read that the equivalent adjective [what is the >right word: I forget] should be "hir" [for "his/her"]. I quite like >that. > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK >Quango's birthday is on 11th November ICQ 20039682 >Emails to bluejak on OKB >Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 07:47:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:31:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16544 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:31:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-120-101.s101.tnt14.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.120.101]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA16733 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:37:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004c01bf2c83$a7125e40$6578accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: Same directions Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:30:41 -0500 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: Martin Sinot To: Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 9:11 AM Subject: RE: Same directions michael amos wrote: > >Far too generous > >Off with their heads > >They won't do that again > >Mike >-- >michael amos Nor will they do anything else for that matter... Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl Not necessarily. They'd make ideal kibitzers. In addition, players who saw them would be extremely polite to the TD, and frivolous appeals would drop to almost nothing... Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 07:57:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:57:40 +1100 (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 HAA16705 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:57:32 +1100 (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 PAA18326 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:55:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991111155305.0081d5e0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:53:05 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Protect yourself In-Reply-To: References: <015601bf2bd1$044d5780$285f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <015601bf2bd1$044d5780$285f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:29 PM 11/10/99 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Some people play Flannery as 4S's, 5H's - I know, I have seen the >arguments on RGB. If people say 4S's, 5H's, knowing that some people >mean this literally, and they don't, do they not have an expectation of >being ruled against? This is perhaps a geographic thing. In the US, when someone plays Flannery, the expectation is generally _exactly_ 4 spades and _exactly_ 5 hearts. This is not to say there are not deviations, but I'd guess fewer than one in one hundred partnerships who play Flannery systemically open Flannery with shapes besides 45xx. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 08:20:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:20:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp4.mindspring.com (smtp4.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16949 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:20:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehks.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.156]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA04498 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:20:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:17:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:38 PM 11/11/99 +0000, David wrote: > I said "other than legal means". You have quoted two situations where >the Laws specifically give you a right to communicate. Thus these are >legal means. The Laws also give you the specific right to ask questions of the opponents. But obviously you understand that. If we presume (as I understand that you do) that L73B1 on its face outlaws "partner's benefit" questions, then arguments to the effect that it is permissible to ask such questions anyway might indeed seem "shocking", in a way, but that is not what I have been trying to argue. If instead we start from the neutral stance of "how should we interpret the language of L73B1 to best serve the interests of the game, while keeping faith with the actual text?", the picture becomes more complex. We should be clear, in defending one interpretation or the other, what underlying bridge values are either promoted or retarded by our chosen interpretation. I understood from your comments that you were, implicitly, defending your preferred interpretation on the basis that preventing communication by means other than bids or plays is an important bridge value, and that your interpretation of the Law was more consistent with that principle. My remarks were directed at that proposition. If instead it is your argument that we should interpret L73B1 as disallowing such questions _because they are illegal_, then I would suggest that this is a somewhat circular argument. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 08:46:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:01:37 +1100 (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 IAA16763 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:01:26 +1100 (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 PAA18532; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:59:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991111155653.00820340@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:56:53 -0500 To: "John Probst" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Same directions In-Reply-To: References: <382A3287.BE4B53B8@mail.telepac.pt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:15 AM 11/11/99 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >For matches where no bridge is played one can assign a score based on >VPs alone. In this specific case the EBU has a regulation that awards >8/20, and other figures for other scales. It is based on a concept of >40%/40% - both sides entirely at fault. In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, we could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and won. Alas, we were not so clever and managed tolose the event by 1 VP. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 09:07:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:07:22 +1100 (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 JAA17237 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:07:15 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id o.0.bfb33a72 (3945); Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:06:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.bfb33a72.255c97de@aol.com> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:06:22 EST Subject: Re: Same directions To: timg@maine.rr.com, john@probst.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/11/99 4:48:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, timg@maine.rr.com writes: > >For matches where no bridge is played one can assign a score based on > >VPs alone. In this specific case the EBU has a regulation that awards > >8/20, and other figures for other scales. It is based on a concept of > >40%/40% - both sides entirely at fault. > > In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 > point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, we > could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and won. > Alas, we were not so clever and managed tolose the event by 1 VP. > Which makes me bring out the old adage again. If you don't write good Conditions of Contest (in this case EBU rules), then you provide for bad things to happen. We had a similar case many years ago in ACBL Both teams had 4 3/4 wins. All 5 1/4 wins were gauranteed to qualify. Halving a match by saying pass,pass,pass,pass 7 times at both tables worked fine. Much hand wringing and hell raising, and talks about ethics and playing to win, but they were playing to win! Personally I see no reason why these teams should get any VPs at all. I would give them every opportunity to make up the match during dinner, break, whatever, but not without playing bridge to win VPs would I give them any. But, what the hell do I know anyhow? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 09:20:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:20:22 +1100 (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 JAA17347 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:20:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05361 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:20:06 +0100 Received: from ip83.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.83), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda05359; Thu Nov 11 23:20:05 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Same directions Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:20:06 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <2j8rOICPW0a7Cp8PeAednP9dJ55Z@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <382A3287.BE4B53B8@mail.telepac.pt> <3.0.6.32.19991111155653.00820340@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991111155653.00820340@maine.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 JAA17348 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:56:53 -0500, Tim Goodwin wrote: >In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 >point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, we >could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and won. Yes, but then you would have been cheating (at least if you knew L72B2). Anybody who wants to cheat and has a minimum of intelligence can get away with it. We should not make laws and regulations that primarily take account of people who cheat. Instead we should do what we can to spread the knowledge of L72B2, so that players know that deliberate irregularities are not allowed. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 09:22:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:22:27 +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 JAA17367 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:22:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:22:04 -0800 Message-ID: <00aa01bf2c92$fb07c120$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <003701bf2c79$6264c760$f984d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Pronouns for persons of unspecified gender Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:20:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > Well since you have raised the issue again... > >(4) Use normally plural pronouns ("they"/"them") in the singular. This has > >literary antecendents back to at least Jane Austen, and is accepted by some > >modern prescriptivists (RH2 cites "Everyone should do their own thing" as > >an example of common and acceptable usage). This approach happens to be my > >personal preference. (If someone reading this doesn't like it, I suggest > >they not use it.) > > The argument of literary antecedents just means that some good authors took > artistic licence with the language. Surely you don't mean that Huck Finn's > dialect is correct English? Or that Robert Burns' is standard usage even as > far south as Liverpool? This reads and sounds improper and illiterate. I not > only will not use it, but will think poorly of anyone who does, much as I > would of one who employed "aint" "like" "y'know" and omitted all the g's > from all of his "ing's". No fair, Craig. The use of "they" by respected writers was not restricted to dialects and such, but was used in serious writing. The Oxford English Dictionayr (OED) quotes Fielding: "Everyone in the house were in their beds." Goldsmith, Sydney Smith, *and* Thackeray: "A person can't help their birth." and Bernard Shaw. I don't see how anybody in their right senses could say that these writers sounded improper and illiterate when read aloud. The OED also says nothing more severe of the use than that is "Not favoured by grammarians." Tough. Grammarians have to accept the fact that language changes, and that colloquial usages can become formal usages over time. Perhaps this usage has not made that progression, but the only way to advance its use is to ignore the grammarians, who can't write worth a lick. > > >(5) Strict alternation. Start with either "he"/"him" or "she"/"her", then > >change to the other with each occasion to use a pronoun. This is rare, > >thankfully; I find it very confusing to use different pronouns for the same > >referent, and expect most readers would agree. > No one is suggesting the use of different pronouns for the same referent, only when the referent changes. > > > >(6) Contextual alternation. Like (5), but change only when the referent > >changes. This is much better than (5), but can still be somewhat > >confusing, as the reader is likely to assume that the author intends (1) > >and is referring to a female referent when using the feminine form. > > As well he should. Readers of my magazine articles have no problem with my use of the male pronoun for opener and "invader" (Danny Kleinman's name for an overcaller or takeout doubler), with the female pronoun used for responder and advancer. At first I thought I was just being even-handed, but quickly found that the practice is very handy for paragraphs in which the partners must be referenced several times, making the the sentences less confusing. Much better than using such gimmicks as "he (opener)." Please don't dig up old articles in which I did not follow this custom. I admit to being inconsistent, and also that this usage is a little bit sexist. However, in our current culture it is usually the man who makes the first move. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 09:46:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:13:37 +1100 (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 JAA17273 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:13:21 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05333 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:13:06 +0100 Received: from ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.42), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdc05326; Thu Nov 11 23:13:02 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:13:02 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <6DwrOJfD4j9RF5XKHNUfSc84pmXA@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <199911111946.OAA00819@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199911111946.OAA00819@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 JAA17276 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:46:25 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >No author can ever see the ambiguities in his >own writing! Exactly. It seems to me that this thread confirms very clearly that it is wrong to let the lawmakers be the authoritative interpreters of the laws they write. I can see the advantage of having a WBF body to interpret the laws - but it should not be the same people who wrote them. The ordinary club TD who has never heard of a WBFLC interpretation rules by the words of the laws. The need to make those laws clear would become much clearer if even at the highest levels they were interpreted by their words and not by their authors' intentions. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 10:17:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:17:32 +1100 (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 KAA17606 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:17:22 +1100 (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 SAA25921 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:17:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:19:18 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I thought our sometimes seemingly interminable "Standard of Proof for a Misbid" thread had run its course, but suddenly it's back, in the form of a "poster child" example... At 01:21 AM 11/11/99 -0500, Ed wrote: >It's a Board-A-Match, West, in third seat, not vulnerable, holds: > >S Q4 >H AT8 >D JT62 >C 7653 > >The bidding goes: > >E S W N >P 1C P 1S >2H 2NT > >West asked, and 2NT was explained as "18-19 HCP". West passes, and N bids >3NT, ending the auction. >West leads the 8 of hearts, and declarer wins the singleton king in dummy, >takes 6 clubs in hand and the AK of diamonds, making his contract. The four >hands were: > > S KJ53 > H K > D K985 > C Q8 > >S Q4 S AT87 >H AT8 H QJ7632 >D JT62 D Q3 >C 7653 C 2 > > S 96 > H 954 > D A7 > C AKJT94 > >E/W call the Director. W says he would have led HA if he'd received a >correct explanation of North/South's agreement. The TD finds that S had >meant 2NT as "good/bad", but that, while N and S had discussed it, they had >not agreed to play it "in this situation". Ruling: result stands. I >understand this, I think. The TD is saying that since N/S had not agreed >that good/bad applied here, "18-19-HCP" was a correct explanation of the >partnership agreement. Mistaken bid, rather than mistaken explanation. Ed appears to be right about the TD's thinking, but the TD's logic is faulty. "N/S had not agreed that good/bad applied here", but (presumably) they had not agreed that it didn't, so it does not follow that "'18-19' HCP was a correct explanation". >Now comes my problem. E/W appealed, and the screening director changed the >ruling to 3NT-3, on the grounds, as I understand it, that S failed to >disclose his partner's failure to alert 2NT, and that he further failed to >correct his partner's mistaken explanation prior to the opening lead. I >infer that the screening director decided that N/S _had_ agreed that 2NT in >this situation would be good/bad, but the article doesn't say so, or say on >what basis the TD made his determination. The AC upheld this ruling, saying >that "the disclosure requirement applies even if the player recognizes that >he and his partner have different ideas about whether a convention may be >used in a particular situation." I don't think the SD decided that "N-S had agreed that 2NT in this situation would be good/bad", but rather determined, correctly, that N-S did not have an agreement either way. >It seems to me that a case could be made that S _thought_ they'd agreed to >play "good/.bad" here, but that N's failure to alert woke him up to the >fact they hadn't. Yet if one accepts that argument, the AC ruling says that >he would have had to disclose what was _in fact_ a mistaken bid, not a >mistaken explanation. This is where I get confused. It seems the committee >are saying that any discussion of a convention constitutes an agreement to >play that convention, at least if there's confusion between the partners as >to when they've agreed to play it. I don't think the AC was saying that "discussion of [the] convention constitute[d] an agreement to play that convention", but rather that discussion of the convention could, and did, create an ambiguous situation, in which both N and S were aware, when S bid 2NT, that they hadn't agreed whether it applied in this situation. This is our central "Standard of Proof" thread situation. The SD and AC seem to have come down firmly one side by ruling that it was N's obligation to reveal the actual situation, i.e. to disclose that they were in an uncertain position in which they had agreed to play good/bad, but hadn't discussed whether it applied in this situation, and, moreover, went even further by saying that when N failed to do so, S should have recognized this as MI and offered a correction, notwithstanding the fact that to do so under these circumstances would have effectively "revealed his hand", letting the world know that he intended his 2NT as good/bad. The opposing school in "Standard of Proof" would argue that N's behavior was exemplary, insomuch as, knowing that partner's 2NT bid was ambiguous, he took his best shot at figuring out or guessing which meaning partner intended, informed his opponents of that meaning at the appropriate time without revealing that he was in doubt about the correctness of his explanation, and, when it turned out that his guess was wrong, took the consequences. It seems to me that this example demonstrates the wisdom of the position taken by the SD and the AC. Had N explained the position as ambiguous, informing his opponents that the partnership had agreed to play good/bad in some situations but had not agreed as to whether it applied here, he would have bid 3NT, and W would have had all available information about the N-S agreements, but wouldn't have had any more clue than N had as to what S had actually held, and would have known it, and (I'd like to think) would either have led HA and beaten it or would have led the H8 and wouldn't have, and none of the TD, the SD nor the AC would have had need to get involved. 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 Nov 12 10:47:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:13:37 +1100 (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 JAA17275 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:13:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05331 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:13:06 +0100 Received: from ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.42), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda05326; Thu Nov 11 23:12:59 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:13:00 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.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 JAA17278 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:38:31 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>But it isn't just me. Disagree however strongly you like with respect to >>the present debate, but you must acknowledge that the Laws allow >>communication other than through bids and plays in a number of specific >>instances. As dummy, you can call partner's attention to a pending possible >>revoke, and may, subject to SO regulation, enjoy the same right as >>defender. If partner errs while reviewing the auction, you have not merely >>the right but the duty to correct him. >> >>Such communications serve important values in the game, and it is my >>contention that the "communication" in question can reasonably be seen in >>exactly the same light. > > I said "other than legal means". Nobody here is suggesting that you may communicate with partner through anything other than legal means. The discussion is about which means are legal and which are not. >You have quoted two situations where >the Laws specifically give you a right to communicate. Thus these are >legal means. L20F gives a specific and seemingly unconditional right to ask questions. Any such question provides information to partner. The law book is therefore IMO far from clear on whether or not it is legal to ask with the explicit purpose of providing information to partner. The correct ruling in a specific case is clearly to follow the WBFLC interpretation unless a local authority has established a different practice. And if a local authority has done so, that local authority should consider carefully whether it is a good idea to continue having that practice. But that does not make the discussion about whether the WBFLC interpretation is reasonable and in accordance with the laws superfluous. And happy birthday to Quango! -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 11:22:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:13:37 +1100 (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 JAA17274 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:13:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA05332 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:13:07 +0100 Received: from ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.42), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb05326; Thu Nov 11 23:13:00 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:13:01 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <0T4rOHrMRf3AX2S4iuuFe1CWzfP6@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <003501bf2c1a$79236d80$ad5108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <003501bf2c1a$79236d80$ad5108c3@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 JAA17277 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:50:15 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ And my reason is not that Michael has > no right to make the argument; it is that > he does not say "this should be the law", > he says "this is the law" when there is an > authoritative ruling that says it is not. The law is what is written in the law book. Nothing else. An authoritative ruling is not a law: it is an instruction on how to interpret the law. Such an interpretation may be simply wrong, no matter how authoritative. Not "wrong" in the sense of "incorrect ruling", of course, because its authoritativeness clearly makes it the correct ruling (at least in some SOs), but "wrong" in the sense of "not the best way to interpret the words of the law" or possibly even "in conflict with the words of the law". (As an example, the WBFLC "interpretation" of L25B seems to me to be obviously directly in conflict with the words of the law.) The reasonableness/correctness of such interpretations are IMO very suitable subjects.for BLML discussions. I have been quite shocked by some recent BLML contributions by Grattan and Kojak. BLML should not be a forum where "authorities" try to shut up different opinions by ridiculing the persons who have those opinions. If you find someone else's position obviously quite wrong, by all means say so; but please do so using civilized language and arguments. If you cannot do that, then be quiet - nobody is forcing you to say anything. A BLML message that contains nothing but derogatory statements about other persons serves no useful purpose at all - other than giving us an impression of its author. I don't want BLML to be a place where authorities give answers and the rest listens - I want to hear the opinion of every BLML member who has his own opinion and wants to share it with us. If people cannot voice their opinions without a risk of being ridiculed by a WBFLC member, then BLML is no longer the forum for free discussion that we originally created and which I liked. If Mike had suggested that a TD in a WBF event should allow questions for partner's sake, then I would agree that that was obviously completely wrong - but I do not recall him having said that. As I read Mike's contributions, he is merely discussing whether the WBFLC interpretation is a reasonable interpretation of the words of the laws. That is a perfectly good and interesting subject for a BLML discussion. (I personally find the WBFLC interpretation legal and not unreasonable; but I would also find the opposite interpretation legal and not unreasonable, and I think I would prefer it.) Reactions to Mike's opinions of the form "Mike's opinion is contrary to the WBFLC interpretation" are eminently reasonable. Reactions of the form "Mike's opinion is contrary to the laws" are fine as the opinion of their author (though I happen to not share that opinion). But reactions of the form "Mike's opinion is so obviously contrary to the laws that he must be a fool" are absurd and serves only to inhibit the civilized exchange of opinions on BLML. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 11:50:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:50:13 +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 LAA17916 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:50:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.99.50.105] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11m4uf-00009g-00; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:50:01 +0000 Message-ID: <001001bf2ca7$99e75b20$693263c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: , References: <0.bfb33a72.255c97de@aol.com> Subject: Re: Same directions Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:48:13 -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 Kojak wrote: > > >For matches where no bridge is played one can assign a score based on > > >VPs alone. In this specific case the EBU has a regulation that awards > > >8/20, and other figures for other scales. It is based on a concept of > > >40%/40% - both sides entirely at fault. > > > > In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 > > point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, we > > could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and won. > > Alas, we were not so clever and managed to lose the event by 1 VP. > > > > Which makes me bring out the old adage again. If you don't write good > Conditions of Contest (in this case EBU rules), then you provide for bad > things to happen. We had a similar case many years ago in ACBL Both teams > had 4 3/4 wins. All 5 1/4 wins were gauranteed to qualify. Halving a match > by saying pass,pass,pass,pass 7 times at both tables worked fine. Did it? Weren't some of those passes fielded psyches, or at least unlicensed conventions? I bet that if the regulations in respect of those offences had been applied, no one would have got any VPs. For myself, the risk of humiliation is far too great. I once played in a Swiss Teams with my international partner and two young ladies who were being nurtured to play in the Junior European team that year. We sat in the same direction at both tables (on the first round, so no tactics were involved), and their card over 8 boards was at least 50 IMPs better than ours. Ever since then, I have been asked why I habitually rub my beard. I explain that it is a futile attempt to dislodge traces of egg from my face. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 11:56:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:56:52 +1100 (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 LAA17964 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:56:44 +1100 (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 11m50u-000MoC-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:56:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:44:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Same directions In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991111155653.00820340@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.19991111155653.00820340@maine.rr.com>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 04:15 AM 11/11/99 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>For matches where no bridge is played one can assign a score based on >>VPs alone. In this specific case the EBU has a regulation that awards >>8/20, and other figures for other scales. It is based on a concept of >>40%/40% - both sides entirely at fault. > >In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 >point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, we >could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and won. > Alas, we were not so clever and managed tolose the event by 1 VP. > >Tim > If you did do that, I'd give serious consideration to giving a lower score. eg one can agree to pass out all 8 hands and score 10-10. The TD's would likely adjust the results such that neither team qualified. 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 Nov 12 11:56:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:56:55 +1100 (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 LAA17962 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:56:43 +1100 (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 11m50v-00070L-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:56:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:52:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Protect yourself In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991111144034.0074890c@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19991111144034.0074890c@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 03:29 PM 11/10/99 +0000, David wrote: > >> There is also the question of protecting yourself. If your opponent >>says 2D shows 4S's, 5H's and you really need to know whether 6H's is >>possible it would be not unreasonable to ask a supplementary question. >>You should not have to? True, but let us have a little tolerance. > >David's advice, that you should be tolerant and sportsmanlike by protecting >yourself in such situations even though you are not required to do so, is >undoubtedly appropriate on the right side of the pond. > >It should be noted, though, that over here in ACBL-land it is official >policy that players are expected to be aware of the amgiguity of such >descriptions as "that shows four spades and five hearts", and *are* >required to protect themselves in such situations by asking further, >subject to losing their right to seek redress for MI if they fail to do so. > In the UK there is still a requirement to protect oneself. OB 5.5.1 If you claim to have been damaged because your opponents failed to alert a call, and it is judged that you were aware of its likely meaning, you would fail in your claim if you had had the opportunity to ask without putting your side's interests at risk. I'm not sure how far we should go in our interpretation of this. At what point will the TD decide that you would/wouldn't have put your side at risk? 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 Nov 12 12:06:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:06:28 +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 MAA18027 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:06:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.99.50.105] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11m5AO-0007nr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:06:16 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01bf2ca9$dee97440$693263c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <003701bf2c79$6264c760$f984d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Pronouns for persons of unspecified gender Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:04:27 -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 I found Eric's contribution to this peripheral thread most interesting. As a practical matter, however, I am prepared to bet Lombard Street to a china orange that the argument will eventually be resolved by the masses (to whom, after all, the language rightly belongs) in favour of the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. In general, people are far more ready to accept the breaking of grammatical rules than to accept the introduction of a neologism where it is deemed unnecessary. If anyone would like to take a bet, I'm prepared to offer them odds of at least ten to one. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 13:47:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:38:20 +1100 (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 MAA18155 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:38:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from pe8s07a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.103.233] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11m5ef-0002P4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:37:34 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Same directions Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:17:34 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2cab$b2e75cc0$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 List Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Same directions >On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:56:53 -0500, Tim Goodwin > wrote: > >>In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 >>point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, we >>could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and won. > >Yes, but then you would have been cheating (at least if you knew >L72B2). Strong language! Which is the Law, to which L73B2 refers, apply? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 13:57:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 13:57:47 +1100 (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 NAA18550 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 13:57:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.99.50.105] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11m6tn-0005Hg-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:57:16 +0000 Message-ID: <00d101bf2cb9$6622ecc0$693263c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:55:37 -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 Jesper wrote: > The discussion is about which means are legal and which are not. > L20F gives a specific and seemingly unconditional right to ask > questions. Any such question provides information to partner. > The law book is therefore IMO far from clear on whether or not it > is legal to ask with the explicit purpose of providing > information to partner. I wrote, some time ago: Law 20F gives the right to ask questions. It has been argued that this right is unqualified. But even the proponents of that point of view will concede (I think) that it is not in fact permitted to ask questions for the purpose of directing partner's attention to the possibility of bidding or leading a particular suit. The right to ask questions under Law 20F is therefore a qualified right, and abuse of it may be an infraction under Law 73B1. I am not sure to what extent Jesper feels that this argument is invalid, or to what extent this later argument of mine is invalid: Obviously, it is inevitable that if I ask a question because I genuinely require the answer, partner will hear it also under "normal" table conditions. But this does not mean that the right is conferred by the Laws. One might as well ask: is it permitted, playing with screens, for me to ask a question, hear the answer, and then go round the other side of the screen to tell partner what I have asked and what I have learned? As I have said before, the Laws presume an ideal set of conditions - in this context, those ideal conditions are that partner does not hear either the questions I ask or the answers I receive. In my opinion, the Law book is very clear indeed as to "whether or not it is legal to ask with the explicit purpose of providing information to partner". It says that "partners may not communicate through... questions asked or not asked of the opponents...". Now, if I ask a question of the opponents with the explicit (and single) purpose that partner is told something by hearing the answer (because I know the answer already), does that not constitute communication with partner? The reasonable people on this list have rightly upbraided the likes of me for an excess of dogmatism, and I apologise unreservedly for any intemperate language that I have used. Just as I have admired Grattan for his patience in expounding what I believe to be the "correct" point of view, I admire the patience and, above all, the reasonableness with which Michael and (latterly) Jesper have argued what I believe to be the "incorrect" point of view in the face of increasing and unwarranted hostility. I suppose that our differences may be rooted in what we believe the purpose of the Laws to be; Jesper does not think that they are there to stop people cheating, whereas I cannot conceive that they are there for any other purpose. Of that, more anon. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 14:48:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:38:20 +1100 (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 MAA18153 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:38:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from pe8s07a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.103.233] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11m5eh-0002P4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:37:35 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:27:17 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2cad$0ee02c40$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 Enough. For 18 months I have binned every posting that uses the word Flannery. Why? because I have absolutely no idea what Flannery is. Some time ago I tried to understand and came to the conclusion an opening bid with 5/4 distribution and a weak hand. Now it seems to apply to responses to 1 level major suit openings. Is someone going to educate me, or are people going to stop using names for conventions, which may or may not be known by all of us. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Tim Goodwin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 9:13 PM Subject: Re: Protect yourself >At 03:29 PM 11/10/99 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Some people play Flannery as 4S's, 5H's - I know, I have seen the >>arguments on RGB. If people say 4S's, 5H's, knowing that some people >>mean this literally, and they don't, do they not have an expectation of >>being ruled against? > >This is perhaps a geographic thing. In the US, when someone plays >Flannery, the expectation is generally _exactly_ 4 spades and _exactly_ 5 >hearts. This is not to say there are not deviations, but I'd guess fewer >than one in one hundred partnerships who play Flannery systemically open >Flannery with shapes besides 45xx. > >Tim > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 15:27:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:38:18 +1100 (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 MAA18154 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:38:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from pe8s07a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.103.233] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11m5ee-0002P4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:37:33 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Same directions Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:14:18 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2cab$3e498aa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Tim Goodwin To: John Probst ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 10:10 PM Subject: Re: Same directions >At 04:15 AM 11/11/99 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>For matches where no bridge is played one can assign a score based on >>VPs alone. In this specific case the EBU has a regulation that awards >>8/20, and other figures for other scales. It is based on a concept of >>40%/40% - both sides entirely at fault. > >In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 >point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, we >could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and won. > Alas, we were not so clever and managed to lose the event by 1 VP. I recall that this was a question posed in one of the EBU County refreshers that I attended. What would we do if you had done just that, maybe "mistakenly" maybe by agreement with you opps. Also under EBU regs, you win if your team has to leave early because of "illness". Much discussion ensued, including the fact that the TD heard in the bar, within the correction period, that it was "fixed". Are you are acting within the Law, and within the regulations . Any comments? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 15:58:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA18982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 15:58:30 +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 PAA18977 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 15:58:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh1l.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.53]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA02501 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:58:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991111234837.0133e400@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:48:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <00d101bf2cb9$6622ecc0$693263c3@davidburn> References: <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:55 AM 11/12/99 -0000, David B wrote: >Obviously, it is inevitable that if I ask a question because I >genuinely require the answer, partner will hear it also under "normal" >table conditions. But this does not mean that the right is conferred >by the Laws. Either it is legal to ask such a question, under the rights granted by 20F and unfettered by L73B1, or it is not. In the former case, this right _is_ conferred by the Laws. I don't think that you are arguing for the latter position, are you? And if it is legal, then does this not also constitute communication, in essentially the same way as when it is solely the purpose? Consider that few of our actions operate in world of clear black and white. I may guess, or suspect, or be sort of sure about the meaning of the opponents' auction, and be doubtful or simply unaware of partner's level of understanding. If I ask, I do so because the Laws allow for it, in order that _we_ may be fully and properly informed about the opponents' agreements. Is it really the case that the question is a legal one right up to the point when the motivation is "solely" for partner's benefit? These sorts of slippery-slope arguments are seldom very convincing, I know. But in the present case the argument has resonance precisely because of the fundamental reliance upon players to police their own mental states. If all I need to do is to find some shred of uncertainty in my own mind, then that is enough to rationalize my right to ask, is it not? Well, maybe not. But these micro-compromises are made by most of us much of the time, I believe. With respect to other infractions of the Laws, we impose cumbersome but workable structures to enforce the Laws, but Steve's efforts notwithstanding, I really don't believe any such structure will work in the present case. >The reasonable people on this list have rightly upbraided the likes of >me for an excess of dogmatism, and I apologise unreservedly for any >intemperate language that I have used. Just as I have admired Grattan >for his patience in expounding what I believe to be the "correct" >point of view, I admire the patience and, above all, the >reasonableness with which Michael and (latterly) Jesper have argued >what I believe to be the "incorrect" point of view in the face of >increasing and unwarranted hostility. Thanks. And although I certainly appreciate the support expressed by Jesper and Jeremy, inter alia, I wouldn't be involved in discussions like these if I couldn't handle the heat. I do agree with Jesper, though, that it would be very unfortunate if less (fool-)hardy souls were intimidated by the tenor of these discussions from venturing out to express their own views. >I suppose that our differences >may be rooted in what we believe the purpose of the Laws to be; Jesper >does not think that they are there to stop people cheating, whereas I >cannot conceive that they are there for any other purpose. I don't want to speak for Jesper, but my precise view on this question is that the Laws are there to define the boundary between licit and illicit behavior. For me "cheating" connotes deliberate violation of the Laws. By providing standards to measure compliance with the Laws and sanctions for transgressors, the Laws go some distance toward stopping "cheating", although of course history shows that they are far from perfect in this respect. In any case, as we have both been at some pains to suggest, we are not in any way condoning cheating. We think that the text of the Laws does not clearly (and _certainly_ not blindingly obviously ;)) disallow such questions, and that the game might even be the better for them. Personally, I am not averse to abiding by the WBF LC interpretation, at least as long as my own SO remains mute on the the issue, although I can't remember the last time I felt the urge to ask such a question myself. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 16:59:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:59:12 +1100 (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 QAA19170 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:59:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-41-104.s104.tnt10.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.41.104]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id AAA01881 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:58:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00c801bf2cd2$d6c2ace0$6829accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <01bf2cad$0ee02c40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:57:39 -0500 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: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 8:27 PM Subject: Re: Protect yourself > Enough. > For 18 months I have binned every posting that uses the word Flannery. > Why? because I have absolutely no idea what Flannery is. Some time ago I > tried to understand and came to the conclusion an opening bid with 5/4 > distribution and a weak hand. Now it seems to apply to responses to 1 level > major suit openings. > Is someone going to educate me, or are people going to stop using names for > conventions, which may or may not be known by all of us. > Anne The original Flannery convention was a 2D opener to show a hand with 5 hearts and 4 spades, and 11-15 HCP. This was intended to be a solution to a hand that could otherwise create difficult rebid problems (too few hearts to rebid, too weak to reverse, wrong shape for NT). Some pairs use it with longer heart suits, even though those hands do not pose the same rebid problems, as the call minimizes the chances of losing the spade suit. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 17:29:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:29:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from eastgate.cyberway.com.sg (eastgate.cyberway.com.sg [203.116.1.189]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19275 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:29:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from derrickh.cteru.gov.sg ([203.116.18.228]) by eastgate.cyberway.com.sg (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26072 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:28:54 +0800 (SST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991112142513.007ab100@pop.singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:25:13 +0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: derrick heng Subject: Score for walk-over Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all In a round-robin league tournament using the WBF VP scale, the usual score if we get a walk-over is the best of : 18VP or the average of our team's score for all matches played to the end of the round robin or the complement of the average score of the opposing team for all matches played to the end of the round-robin My question is: if the conceding team has also conceded another walk-over, should this match be counted in the computation ? e.g. if in a 9 match round robin, a team scores 56 VP in 7 matches and concedes 2 walkovers, should the complement be 30-(56/7) or 30-(56/8) ? If it matters, assume the usual WBF CoC. Would be interested in the local practices too. Thanks Derrick From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 19:32:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 19:32:27 +1100 (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 TAA19706 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 19:32:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.48] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11mC7s-000MVA-00; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:32:08 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01bf2ce8$61404520$305108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:31:13 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 11 November 1999 23:25 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > >Exactly. It seems to me that this thread confirms very clearly >that it is wrong to let the lawmakers be the authoritative >interpreters of the laws they write. > >I can see the advantage of having a WBF body to interpret the >laws - but it should not be the same people who wrote them. > +=+ The WBF has ordered it this way. That was the decision of those who set up the Constitution. The WBFLC simply does what it is instructed to do - "shall interpret the Laws". But the observation does not take account of the fact that the minutes of the WBFLC are subject to ratification by the Executive Council of the WBF and only take effect when they have been approved by the Executive. There are two different bodies involved; further, when published to the NCBOs they bear the imprint of the highest authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 20:45:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:45:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19937 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:45:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11mDGP-000Kkf-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:45:02 +0000 Message-ID: <+Rp2xBAFk3K4Ew$U@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:18:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Same directions References: <382A3287.BE4B53B8@mail.telepac.pt> <3.0.6.32.19991111155653.00820340@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991111155653.00820340@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.19991111155653.00820340@maine.rr.com>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 04:15 AM 11/11/99 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>For matches where no bridge is played one can assign a score based on >>VPs alone. In this specific case the EBU has a regulation that awards >>8/20, and other figures for other scales. It is based on a concept of >>40%/40% - both sides entirely at fault. > >In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 >point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, we >could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and won. > Alas, we were not so clever and managed tolose the event by 1 VP. > >Tim > And if you think you'll get away with that with DWS or myself in charge ..... I think you "could have known...... " at the time of your infraction and so I know where to look in the Law Book. I guess the penalty would be disqualification mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 20:46:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:46:34 +1100 (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 UAA19957 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:46:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from p10s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.17] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11mDHB-0004TM-00; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:45:49 -0800 Message-ID: <000901bf2cf2$8d579be0$118a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:58:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: 11 November 1999 13:54 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > >>+=+ Incredible. Are we to have 79 posts >>on this triviality? Did everyone understand >>what I wrote? - if so, good enough. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Funnily enough, we have posts on what we want to have posts on. > > Some light hearted posts are *necessary* at this particular time. > +=+ Oh yes, indeed - but this does not meet the 'funnily enough' criterion IMO. +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 12 21:10:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 21:10:16 +1100 (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 VAA20081 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 21:10:08 +1100 (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 KAA22702; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:09:58 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA09312; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:09:56 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:09:55 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 KAA27013; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:09:53 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA04441; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:09:53 GMT Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:09:53 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199911121009.KAA04441@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Schoderb@aol.com Subject: Re: Same directions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >For matches where no bridge is played one can assign a score based on > > >VPs alone. In this specific case the EBU has a regulation that awards > > >8/20, and other figures for other scales. It is based on a concept of > > >40%/40% - both sides entirely at fault. > > > > In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 > > point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, we > > could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and won. > > Alas, we were not so clever and managed tolose the event by 1 VP. > > > > Which makes me bring out the old adage again. If you don't write good > Conditions of Contest (in this case EBU rules), then you provide for bad > things to happen. We had a similar case many years ago in ACBL Both teams > had 4 3/4 wins. All 5 1/4 wins were gauranteed to qualify. Halving a match > by saying pass,pass,pass,pass 7 times at both tables worked fine. Much hand > wringing and hell raising, and talks about ethics and playing to win, but > they were playing to win! Personally I see no reason why these teams should > get any VPs at all. I would give them every opportunity to make up the match > during dinner, break, whatever, but not without playing bridge to win VPs > would I give them any. But, what the hell do I know anyhow? > Kojak Sorry to be boring, but we do have good Conditions of Contest. The EBU rules (the "White Book" in this case) cover this case (almost) explicitly. The regulation quoted above is not the complete regulation, it goes on to say that in aggravated circumstances (such as both teams only needing 5VPs to qualify) the TD can award a more sever penalty (such as 0-0). David Stevenson has also said that if two teams pass out all the boards at both tables we would look for concealed/illegal agreements, etc. Of course, if the eight players appeared to be playing bridge at the two tables but wrote down fictitious results which resulted in a match result of 14-13IMPs and handed in card with +/-1 IMP 10-10VPs, it is unlikely they would be caught. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 00:06:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:06:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA20771 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:06:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA01276 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:04:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991112080201.00809370@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:02:01 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Same directions In-Reply-To: <199911121009.KAA04441@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:09 AM 11/12/99 GMT, Robin Barker wrote: [speaking of passing out all boards in a Swiss match in order to achieve a tie.] >David >Stevenson has also said that if two teams pass out all the boards at both >tables we would look for concealed/illegal agreements, etc. I don't think there would be any problem with concealed agreements -- it seems that the agreement has been well disclosed. As far as illegal agreements: I've never seen a regulation that states a maximum value for a pass. I'm not suggesting there are no Laws or regulations that might address this situation, just that concealed/illegal agreements are not an issue. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 00:42:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:42:53 +1100 (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 AAA20938 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:42:45 +1100 (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 IAA11703 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:43:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991112084445.007062a8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:44:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Protect yourself In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991111144034.0074890c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:52 AM 11/12/99 +0000, John wrote: >In article <3.0.1.32.19991111144034.0074890c@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau > writes > >>It should be noted, though, that over here in ACBL-land it is official >>policy that players are expected to be aware of the amgiguity of such >>descriptions as "that shows four spades and five hearts", and *are* >>required to protect themselves in such situations by asking further, >>subject to losing their right to seek redress for MI if they fail to do so. > >In the UK there is still a requirement to protect oneself. > >OB 5.5.1 If you claim to have been damaged because your opponents >failed to alert a call, and it is judged that you were aware of its >likely meaning, you would fail in your claim if you had had the >opportunity to ask without putting your side's interests at risk. > >I'm not sure how far we should go in our interpretation of this. At what >point will the TD decide that you would/wouldn't have put your side at >risk? On rereading my own statement, I seem to have overstated the ACBL policy; I should have written "players *who* are expected to be aware... are required...". I don't have the source to hand, but this is one of those policies that explicitly applies only to players who are sufficiently experienced that they "should know better". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 00:52:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:52:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from slot1-167.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot1-167.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA20996 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:52:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-167.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA25725 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:51:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:51:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Unbelievable. I've read the majority of the thread and had no idea that so many hated alerts so much. Really! I knew that alerts annoyed some folks, by oh my! I don't see how I could properly disclose methods to my opponents without them. In my most frequent partnership we're very active both on offense and on defense. I'd say we have at least one alerted call in two thirds of the boards we play. Without alerts how could we hope for any reasonable level of disclosure? Next point. (ACBL specific) The "don't alert anything that has a box" rule just won't work in any club I've ever played in. Why? Simple -- because there are typically at least four styles of convention cards in use. Folks that have been playing the same card for 10 (or 20 or 30!) years simply don't fill out all new convention cards when new ones come out. Clubs don't throw out all their old cards when new ones come out (they cost money!). Several different companies print convention cards with subtle differences. It would certainly be easier than the current albatross we use. Back to alerts. What is so bad about alerts? The idea is disclosure. If you make the rules simple, as the Brits have, there are a few more alerts, but noone gets them wrong. If you try for pinpoint accuracy, as the ACBL has, there are fewer alerts, but even experienced players get them wrong. BTW, Marvin's post on some of the ACBL exceptions lists a few items where the attempt for such accuracy has fallen far short. I'd like to eventually see a day when alerting regulations and so forth are common across the world. As long as folks tailor alerting regulations to what was common in the USA (or Britain or Italy or Sweden or ...) 20 years ago or to what folks on the BOD play we will never get there. The world keeps getting smaller. Provincial regulations such as these make less sense with every passing day. Bruce Bridge Laws Discussion List wrote: : At 01:49 PM 11/5/99 +0100, Herman wrote: :>We should draft a list of general principles concerning :>alert procedures. :>Not a general alert procedure, certainly not, because :>standards are far too different in different countries. :>But general principles. :> :>I propose one : :> :>Asking bids, in common situations, should not be alerted :>solely based on the answering scheme. Answers to them :>should be alerted if they differ from the standard meaning. :> :>Ex : 2NT-3Cl not alertable, no matter if it is Stayman, :>Baron, Puppet or anything. : Here's my contribution; I think Marv at least will approve... : Any method that can be indicated by checking a box (or circling an option) : on the convention card should not be alertable. : ACBL examples are too numerous to enumerate completely. They include : simple transfers over NT openings, forcing 1NT responses to a major : opening, 2NT, 3NT and "splinter" double jumps as forcing raises of a major : opening, inverted minor raises, limit 2NT responses to 1-level opening : bids, "fourth suit forcing", non-forcing new suit responses to weak 2-bids, : responsive and support doubles, preemptive jump raises and jump shifts in : competition, strong and intermediate jump overcalls, and much more. : 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 Nov 13 01:11:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:11:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21096 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:11:33 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id f.0.84812bc8 (4200); Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:10:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.84812bc8.255d79c8@aol.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:10:16 EST Subject: Re: Same directions To: rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/12/99 5:10:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk writes: > Sorry to be boring, but we do have good Conditions of Contest. The EBU > rules (the "White Book" in this case) cover this case (almost) explicitly. > The regulation quoted above is not the complete regulation, it goes on to > say that in aggravated circumstances (such as both teams only needing 5VPs > to qualify) the TD can award a more sever penalty (such as 0-0). David > Stevenson has also said that if two teams pass out all the boards at both > tables we would look for concealed/illegal agreements, etc. Thank you. I had a feeling that there was more to the EBU rules than just stated. I don't mean to imply that EBU has bad conditions of contest, and they are not alone in trying to make Rules that protect the game against chicanery. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 01:14:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:14:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21124 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:14:40 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 3CSHa18447 (4200); Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:13:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.665ca0ad.255d7aa4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:13:56 EST Subject: Re: Same directions To: Dburn@btinternet.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 11/11/99 7:50:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, Dburn@btinternet.com writes: > I bet that if the regulations in respect of > those offences had been applied, no one would have got any VPs. Yes they were applied, in a sense, in that the Chief TD (wasn't me) gave them zero VPs without much legal baseing thereof, and one large sized chewing out. It was also the result of an argument often proposed by Kaplan that if you are playing to win the event you can do whatever the conditions don't prohibit you to do as long as you don't violate the Laws. His purpose was to put pressure on the authorities to write better conditions. We often argued whether a good purpose is sullied by proposing questionable practices. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 01:31:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:31:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from slot0-23.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-23.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21183 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:30:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-23.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA25931 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:29:53 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: slot0-23.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net: moorebj owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:29:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This sounds easy to me. Point the TD in the direction of the convention card regulations. They may be found online at: http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm At Sectional and higher rated tournaments: 1. Each player is required to have a convention card legibly filled out and on the table throughout the session. Both cards of a partnership must be identical and include the first and last names of each member of the partnership. 2. If a director determines that neither player has a substantially completed card, the partnership may only play conventions listed on the ACBL Limited Convention Chart and may only use standard carding. This restriction may only be lifted at the beginning of a subsequent round after convention cards have been properly prepared and approved by the director. Further, the partnership will receive a 1/6 board match point penalty for each board played, commencing with the next round and continuing until the restriction is lifted. In IMP Team Games penalties shall be at the discretion of the director. 3. If the director determines that the partnership has at least one substantially completed convention card but has not fully complied with ACBL regulations, then the director may give warnings or assign such penalties as he deems to be appropriate under the circumstances. 4. The object of these warnings and penalties is the encouragement of full compliance with ACBL regulations. Note that the first item includes the adverb "legibly" and the prepositional phrase "on the table" ;-). Also note that the LCC is, well, Limited ;-) ; especially so for most current US tournament players. Among the limitations: - No short club unless it's forcing! - No Flannery - No mini Roman (or any Roman twos, for that matter) - No Namyats - No 1NT forcing! They can't play 2/1 or K-S - No Drury of any kind - No arbitrary conventions starting with opener's rebid! No 4SF or NMF. No Precision (eg: 1C-1N-2C(Stayman)). Let's see.... of the systems I've actually seen played in ACBL, they could play a very simple SA or ... very simple SA ;-). Oddly enough, EHAA looks legal. If the TD refuses to enforce these regulations, ask him why he will not. Ask him -- politely! -- if there are other regulations that he *will* enforce, and if so, why there is a difference. If this fails, see the CTD and see if he sees things differently. If all these fail, you could report your failures to Gary Blaiss. But it shouldn't come to that. I think it's disgraceful that a good player would hold such a poor attitude regarding disclosure. Bruce Marvin L. French wrote: : [snip] : And to most of us non-pros. In my experience, many (if not a majority) of : pros do not like the use of ccs for the purpose of disclosure, preferring : that disclosure come via questioning. They maintain that the only good : purpose for ccs is to document partnership understandings, both for the : partnership's benefit and for evidence in TD/AC legal proceedings. : As a result, you see pros who have no cc in view, with clients' cc in a : purse or pocket, not on the table. When there are two ccs, they have : unreadable scribbling on them. One of the top players in the U.S. uses a : scribbled cc for client partnerships that is many years out of date, hence : illegal. He reluctantly drags it out when required to do so. One of the : most prominent members of the Competition and Conventions committee : bad-mouthed the cc regulations regularly, and had none himself the last : time I played against him and a client. The cc regulations provide severe : measures for violations, but my experience has been they are never : enforced. Afraid to offend the influential?? Unenforced rules are worse : than no rules. : Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 01:42:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:42:20 +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 BAA21205 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:42:11 +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 JAA11714 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:24:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA01350 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:25:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:25:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911121425.JAA01350@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > For me "cheating" connotes deliberate violation of the Laws. I think I'd say this is the very definition of cheating; no "connotes" for me! (In order to be deliberate in this sense, the person has to be aware he is violating the laws. English sure is a slippery language sometimes.) > By > providing standards to measure compliance with the Laws and sanctions for > transgressors, the Laws go some distance toward stopping "cheating", > although of course history shows that they are far from perfect in this > respect. I don't think the Laws can stop cheating, but they can define what it is, or at least define what is a violation and what is legal. Then it's up to officials (with evidence from players and other sources as needed) to stop or at least punish any cheating that occurs. Specifically, once a violation of law is noted and there is reason to believe it might have been deliberate (rare, thankfully), it's time for cognizant officials to think about investigating further. None of this is particularly relevant to the main topic of the thread. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 01:57:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:57:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21249 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:57:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from p4as09a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.169.75] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11mI8E-0002oI-00; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:56:54 -0800 Message-ID: <006201bf2d1d$ff1486a0$4ba993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:52:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: 11 November 1999 20:09 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> +=+ And my reason is not that Michael has >> no right to make the argument; it is that >> he does not say "this should be the law", >> he says "this is the law" when there is an >> authoritative ruling that says it is not. > >This is not what I think Michael has said, nor is it what several >others of us have agreed with. He is, I believe, saying that _the text >of the laws_, read alone, appears to give the right to ask "pro >questions." I am sure Grattan cannot see this because he knows what >the text was supposed to say and is therefore convinced that it does >say what was intended. No author can ever see the ambiguities in his >own writing > +=+ It was not my writing. Rest assured it would have left less scope for ambiguity if I had phrased it - see the WBFLC 1999 minute! My concern is not with the wording of the law but with any failure to recognize the binding nature of the Lille minute as approved and ratified by the WBF Executive. And I am sorry if you find offensive a straight statement of what I think, but that is how it is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 02:23:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 02:23:23 +1100 (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 CAA21522 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 02:23:16 +1100 (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 KAA24862 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:23:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991112102518.0073c5b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:25:18 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:51 AM 11/12/99 -0500, Bruce wrote: >The "don't alert anything that has a box" rule just won't >work in any club I've ever played in. Why? Simple -- because >there are typically at least four styles of convention cards >in use. Folks that have been playing the same card for 10 >(or 20 or 30!) years simply don't fill out all new convention >cards when new ones come out. Clubs don't throw out all >their old cards when new ones come out (they cost money!). >Several different companies print convention cards with >subtle differences. > >Bridge Laws Discussion List wrote: > >: Any method that can be indicated by checking a box (or circling an option) >: on the convention card should not be alertable. > >: ACBL examples are too numerous to enumerate completely. They include >: simple transfers over NT openings, forcing 1NT responses to a major >: opening, 2NT, 3NT and "splinter" double jumps as forcing raises of a major >: opening, inverted minor raises, limit 2NT responses to 1-level opening >: bids, "fourth suit forcing", non-forcing new suit responses to weak 2-bids, >: responsive and support doubles, preemptive jump raises and jump shifts in >: competition, strong and intermediate jump overcalls, and much more. The "'don't alert anything that has a box' rule", though, is not justified by anything that really has to do with convention cards or checkboxes. My (oft-expressed) view is that alerts were originally, and should continue to be, designed to apply to methods that are "uncommon, unusual and unexpected". The point of the rule was to suggest that a method which is common, usual and expected enough to warrant having a checkbox on the CC should not require an alert, not because it has a box, but because the box gives us prima facie evidence that the method isn't uncommon, unusual and unexpected. In this context, we need only assume that an SO which has published some "latest and greatest" version of their CC expects their players to be familiar enough with the options it presents in "checkbox" form to know whether or not to check the box (this assumption may not be warranted in the ACBL right now, but that's off the point) -- it's the familiarity that matters, not the presence of the box itself -- in which case the fact that they may actually be playing with some older or different CC doesn't matter. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 03:01:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:01:13 +1100 (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 DAA21613 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:01:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from p5es03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.95] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11mJ7s-0005T8-00; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:00:36 -0800 Message-ID: <001e01bf2d26$ea441200$5f8393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 15:58:33 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 31 October 1999 21:46 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >At 01:31 PM 10/30/99 -0400, Steve wrote: > >> >I am not completely clear on this point. The authority for the WBFLC to >amend the Laws by commentary is not to be found in the Laws themselves. >Perhaps the charter of the WBFLC, agreed to by the Zonal authorities, >grants the force of Law to extra-textual pronouncements and interpretations >voted on by that body. I plead ignorance of the underlying technical issues >in this regard. > +=+ 'Agreed to by the Zonal Authorities' is not right. The 'Zonal Authorities' are creations of the World Bridge Federation; it is the NCBOs who are the members of the WBF and who, in seeking membership, contract to be bound by the Constitution and By-Laws of the WBF. It is an improbable scenario that a limb of the WBF, as a Zone is, can disregard the pronouncements of the parent body of which it is part. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ N.B. The WBF Directory lists Zone 2 and gives it the title of ACBL; it lists four constituent NCBOs, one of which is 'United States' and gives the NCB of this as 'the ACBL'. Two hats. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 03:41:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:41:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA21735 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:41:07 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id v.0.2025f731 (4211); Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:39:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.2025f731.255d9cd9@aol.com> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:39:53 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/12/99 9:43:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > I don't think the Laws can stop cheating, but they can define what it > is, or at least define what is a violation and what is legal. Then it's > up to officials (with evidence from players and other sources as > needed) to stop or at least punish any cheating that occurs. > Specifically, once a violation of law is noted and there is reason to > believe it might have been deliberate (rare, thankfully), it's time for > cognizant officials to think about investigating further. > > None of this is particularly relevant to the main topic of the thread. > Perhaps not too relevant to the thread, but of infinitely greater value to read, digest, and apply. Unfortunately, it is too often glossed over in practice. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 03:47:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:24:46 +1100 (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 DAA21669 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:24:27 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07736 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:24:13 +0100 Received: from ip150.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.150), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdd07727; Fri Nov 12 17:24:09 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Same directions Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:24:08 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <01bf2cab$b2e75cc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf2cab$b2e75cc0$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 DAA21671 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:17:34 -0000, "Anne Jones" wrote: >From: Jesper Dybdal > >>On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:56:53 -0500, Tim Goodwin >> wrote: >> >>>In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 >>>point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, we >>>could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and >won. >> >>Yes, but then you would have been cheating (at least if you knew >>L72B2). > >Strong language! If you deliberately do something that you know is illegal in order to win, that seems to me to be cheating. >Which is the Law, to which L73B2 refers, apply? I assume you mean L72B2: how about L5? But it is interesting that L72B2 does not explicitly mention regulations as well as the laws; does L72B2 cover L80F regulations? (I hope it does, but the wording does not say so directly.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 04:49:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:24:45 +1100 (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 DAA21670 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:24:27 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07734 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:24:13 +0100 Received: from ip150.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.150), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb07727; Fri Nov 12 17:24:08 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:24:07 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <000a01bf2ce8$61404520$305108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <000a01bf2ce8$61404520$305108c3@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 DAA21673 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:31:13 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Jesper Dybdal >>I can see the advantage of having a WBF body to interpret the >>laws - but it should not be the same people who wrote them. >> >+=+ The WBF has ordered it this way. That was the >decision of those who set up the Constitution. The >WBFLC simply does what it is instructed to do - >"shall interpret the Laws". Yes. I certainly did not mean to imply that the WBFLC is not doing exactly what its job is. > But the observation >does not take account of the fact that the minutes >of the WBFLC are subject to ratification by the >Executive Council of the WBF and only take effect >when they have been approved by the Executive. >There are two different bodies involved; further, >when published to the NCBOs they bear the >imprint of the highest authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ But does the Executive Council go into the details before approving, and does it have the law knowledge necessary? One might suspect that an authoritative interpretation by the WBFLC would have to be very bad in order for the Executive to stop it. I'm not saying that it would be easy in practice to have a separate body to interpret the laws. In fact, I think it would be difficult to keep the WBFLC away from the authoritative rulings and still have a WFBLC that is close enough to the problems of actually ruling the game to be good at the law-making. But in an ideal world, they should be separate bodies. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 04:55:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:24:46 +1100 (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 DAA21668 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:24:27 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07733 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:24:13 +0100 Received: from ip150.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.150), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda07727; Fri Nov 12 17:24:07 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:24:06 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <=DwsOAV02jsZJ1SoW4EeCfEgPsdG@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <00d101bf2cb9$6622ecc0$693263c3@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <00d101bf2cb9$6622ecc0$693263c3@davidburn> 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 DAA21672 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:55:37 -0000, "David Burn" wrote: >I wrote, some time ago: > >Law 20F gives the right to ask questions. It has been argued that this >right is unqualified. But even the >proponents of that point of view will concede (I think) that it is not >in fact permitted to ask questions for the purpose of directing >partner's attention >to the possibility of bidding or leading a particular suit. The right >to ask questions under Law 20F is therefore a qualified right, and >abuse of it may be an infraction under Law 73B1. > >I am not sure to what extent Jesper feels that this argument is >invalid, It is a valid argument. We definitely do not want asking in order to direct partner to be legal; to achieve that, we must interpret L73B as taking precedence over L20F in that situation. Not because the laws say so, but because it is necessary in order to not destroy an important aspect of the game. On the other hand, we definitely do want asking in order to get needed knowledge of opponents' system to be legal; to achieve that, we must interpret L73B as not taking precedence over L20F in _all_ situations (L20F would of course be meaningless if L73B inhibited _all_ questions). In a related situation, the powers that be have decided that L73B overrides L9a2a in the specific case of calling attention to partner's incorrectly turned card, but not in the case of other irregularities. This leads me to conclude that L73B can be - and is - used to forbid just about any action (other than calling and playing) that we want to forbid. >or to what extent this later argument of mine is invalid: [snip] >In my opinion, the Law book is very clear indeed as to "whether or not >it is legal to ask with the explicit purpose of providing information >to partner". It says that "partners may not communicate through... >questions asked or not asked of the opponents...". Now, if I ask a >question of the opponents with the explicit (and single) purpose that >partner is told something by hearing the answer (because I know the >answer already), does that not constitute communication with partner? That is a perfectly valid interpretation - probably even the most natural one. It is based on "communicate" = "an act that provides information". But is it not also possible to interpret the word "communicate" as "transfer information from A to B", so that provoking a third part to give partner information to which partner is entitled is not "communication between partners"? If I call a bookstore and ask them to send you a dictionary with a good definition of "communicate", have I communicated with you? (The dictionaries I have checked are not clear; the wording used in "The Shorter Oxford" 1973 seems to emphasize the "from A to B" aspect, while the wording in "Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary" 1994 seem to cover the indirect form to a higher degree.) >I suppose that our differences >may be rooted in what we believe the purpose of the Laws to be; Jesper >does not think that they are there to stop people cheating, This is a slightly exaggerated version of my point of view, but basically right. I don't think we _can_ stop determined people from cheating. Of course, the laws should preferably make it difficult to cheat, but not at the expense of making the game significantly less pleasant for those who do not cheat. >whereas I >cannot conceive that they are there for any other purpose. The laws should primarily define the borderline between correct behaviour and incorrect behaviour. The least we can do for people who do not want to cheat is to tell them what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 05:18:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 05:18:17 +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 FAA21971 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 05:18:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:17:59 -0800 Message-ID: <01f501bf2d39$bc5d9a60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bruce Moore" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Suggestions for Alert Procedure Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:04:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce J. Moore wrote; > > Next point. (ACBL specific) > > The "don't alert anything that has a box" rule just won't > work in any club I've ever played in. Why? Simple -- because > there are typically at least four styles of convention cards > in use. Folks that have been playing the same card for 10 > (or 20 or 30!) years simply don't fill out all new convention > cards when new ones come out. Clubs don't throw out all > their old cards when new ones come out (they cost money!). > Several different companies print convention cards with > subtle differences. The argument about using up old stock does not hold water. ACBL convention cards (CCs) have two purposes: (1) Disclosure of parrtnership agreements, and (2), on the reverse side, a place to record one's scores. (2) uses up many more cards than (1) for most partnerships, and the old stock could be used for (2), no problem. Until the last edition of the ACBL CC, every edition came with an announcement that the outdated card would be illegal after some period of time, typically 1-1/2 years. The last card revision, however, did not include this requirement -- as it should have. That means any CC that goes back further than the one before the current one is illegal. People are just too lazy to fill out a new card. Since most pros carry a raft of CCs for use with various clients, they can't be bothered to change. And, as we all know, the CC regulations are not enforced. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 05:43:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 05:43:55 +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 FAA22029 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 05:43:47 +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 NAA26130 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 13:43:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA01620 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 13:43:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 13:43:49 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911121843.NAA01620@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > We definitely do not want asking in order to direct partner to be > legal; to achieve that, we must interpret L73B as taking > precedence over L20F in that situation. Not because the laws say > so, but because it is necessary in order to not destroy an > important aspect of the game. L20F is explicitly qualified by L16 and L75C but not by L73B. Absent the Lille interpretation, I would have thought the omission to be significant. In many other situations, we don't worry about transmission of UI. We only worry about restricting the subsequent actions of the receiver. In the pro question, we have something like Unauthorized Transmission of AI. > If I call a bookstore and ask them to send you a dictionary with > a good definition of "communicate", have I communicated with you? This is where English gets slippery. (I don't know whether other languages are better or not.) It could be either yes or no, depending on context. > The laws should primarily define the borderline between correct > behaviour and incorrect behaviour. The least we can do for > people who do not want to cheat is to tell them what they are > allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. Exactly. (Didn't we have a long thread on "clear rules?") From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 06:58:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA22333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 06:58:59 +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 GAA22328 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 06:58:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24614; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:58:19 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01bf2cad$0ee02c40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:56:13 -0500 To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Protect yourself Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:27 AM +0000 11/12/99, Anne Jones wrote: >Enough. >For 18 months I have binned every posting that uses the word Flannery. >Why? because I have absolutely no idea what Flannery is. Some time ago I >tried to understand and came to the conclusion an opening bid with 5/4 >distribution and a weak hand. Now it seems to apply to responses to 1 level >major suit openings. The Flannery convention is a 2D opening bid on a hand with 11-15 HCP, four spades, and five hearts. This convention has an indirect effect on bidding after the opening. If the opening bid is 1H, opener cannot have four spades unless he is strong enough to reverse; therfore, 1S by responder shows five spades, and 1NT may bypass a four-card spade suit. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 08:35:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:35:53 +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 IAA22633 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:35:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 13:35:36 -0800 Message-ID: <022b01bf2d55$44da71e0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 13:31:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Anne Jones wrote: > >Enough. > >For 18 months I have binned every posting that uses the word Flannery. > >Why? because I have absolutely no idea what Flannery is. Some time ago I > >tried to understand and came to the conclusion an opening bid with 5/4 > >distribution and a weak hand. Now it seems to apply to responses to 1 level > >major suit openings. > > The Flannery convention is a 2D opening bid on a hand with 11-15 HCP, four > spades, and five hearts. > > This convention has an indirect effect on bidding after the opening. If > the opening bid is 1H, opener cannot have four spades unless he is strong > enough to reverse; therfore, 1S by responder shows five spades, and 1NT may > bypass a four-card spade suit. > And, unbelievably, those responses are not Alertable! As an aside, the ACBL wants players to explain bids by giving their meanings, not by their names. The explanation of this convention is therefore not "Flannery," but "Five-plus hearts, usually five, and four spades, nn to NN HCP." Then someone like Anne will not be embarassed at hir (his, for Craig) lack of knowledge about Flannery, and others will be given more specific information than the word "Flannery" provides. However, there is a place on the convention card for disclosing this agreement. After "2D," one supplies the HCP range for the bid, checks the red box labled "Conv" (Alertable, conventional) and under the "Describe" column enters "5+hearts, 4 spades." When 2D is Alerted, an opponent can glance at the opposing CC, see the meaning, and make hir next call. No need to ask for an explanation. That's the way Alerts and the CC are supposed to work, each supplementing the other, when possible. The rule about not naming a convention is generally ignored. Perhaps this is because the ACBL puts the names of many conventions on the CC, to save space. Seeing a convention name on the CC, players assume they can use it as an explanation. In my experience, most experts adhere to the rule, which is a good one. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 09:12:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:12:32 +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 JAA22828 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:12:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-173.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.173]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA06378; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:12:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00ba01bf2d5b$3d43f180$ad84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:14:02 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott >N.B. The WBF Directory lists Zone 2 and >gives it the title of ACBL; it lists four constituent >NCBOs, one of which is 'United States' and >gives the NCB of this as 'the ACBL'. Two >hats. What is listed as the NCBO for Canada, Mexico and Bermuda, all of which I understand to be part of the ACBL? -- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 09:27:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:27:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay2.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22873 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:27:30 +1100 (EST) Received: by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.66) id BAA22527; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:27:19 +0300 (MSK) Received: from h12.37.elnet.msk.ru(195.58.37.12) by gateway via smap (V2.0) id xma022502; Sat, 13 Nov 99 01:26:42 +0300 Message-ID: <382C940C.6121FB28@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:26:22 +0300 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <000a01bf2ce8$61404520$305108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) With great interest I've been reading pasts on the thread - and took a brave decision: to write one more. But I discussed the matter with Sergey Kapustin - and it is our common opinion. We do not want to exercise the case from the view of the Laws. We are no more than human being. And even the strongest from us has his weak days. Let us remind Maradonna case. He did know that nobody had right to play with hands, didn't he? But he played... Moreover - during discussion with jounalists he said that it was the Lord's hand. Didn't he know whose hand it was?:)) And he still is the Great player, isn't he?:) I am sincer follower of Edgar the Great - author of "Appeal Commitee", the Chairman of WBF committee, etc. But discussed case was made by player. Human being. His following explanation proved only his weakness (for me) and cannot be used as argument in discussion on interpretastion matter: noone can be judge for himself (the common position of civilized world). Moreover, one may apply Edgar's principle (as they were written in his great work "Appeal Committee") - and it'll become clear that his partner's action is subject of rule of 75%. The case did not make less my respect to Edgar - during my bridge life I made a lot of doings that I have hardly beleived it was made by me. It did happen. I am human being too. But most of us are learning and changed. One more point - that time there were no such thing as BLML. Only now we can exchange opinions around the world - and it does influent on our position. I guess that nowadays Edgar would support this position too. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 11:39:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:39:30 +1100 (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 LAA23063 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:39:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from p98s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.153] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11mRDB-0006gA-00; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:38:37 +0000 Message-ID: <001a01bf2d6f$4f6e1f20$998a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:35:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; Michael S. Dennis Date: 12 November 1999 22:12 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > >-----Original Message----- >From: Grattan Endicott >>N.B. The WBF Directory lists Zone 2 and >>gives it the title of ACBL; it lists four constituent >>NCBOs, one of which is 'United States' and >>gives the NCB of this as 'the ACBL'. Two >>hats. > > >What is listed as the NCBO for Canada, Mexico and Bermuda, all of which I >understand to be part of the ACBL? > +=+ - Bermuda Contract bridge League - Canadian Bridge Federation - Federacion Mexicana de Bridge and do not these enter as separate NCBOs in Championships? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 15:02:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA25967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:02:11 +1100 (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 PAA25958 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:01:57 +1100 (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 <19991113040143.JSOZ4758.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:01:43 -0800 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: Same directions Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 19:59:29 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <0.bfb33a72.255c97de@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Which makes me bring out the old adage again. If you don't write good > Conditions of Contest (in this case EBU rules), then you provide for bad > things to happen. We had a similar case many years ago in ACBL > Both teams > had 4 3/4 wins. All 5 1/4 wins were gauranteed to qualify. > Halving a match > by saying pass,pass,pass,pass 7 times at both tables worked fine. > Much hand > wringing and hell raising, and talks about ethics and playing to win, but > they were playing to win! Personally I see no reason why these > teams should > get any VPs at all. I would give them every opportunity to make > up the match > during dinner, break, whatever, but not without playing bridge to win VPs > would I give them any. But, what the hell do I know anyhow? > Kojak Perfect! Linda From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 19:45:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 19:45:00 +1100 (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 TAA26351 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 19:44:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.68] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11mYnb-000LKT-00; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:44:43 +0000 Message-ID: <000601bf2db3$4d525320$445208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws List" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 02:25:47 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk - but it should not be theGrattan To: Bridge Laws List Date: 12 November 1999 18:12 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:31:13 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jesper Dybdal > >But does the Executive Council go into the details before >approving, and does it have the law knowledge necessary? > +=+ I imagine the WBFLC is thought to comprise the top echelon of the world's law people; and I do not see, frankly, how anyone else can pretend to a superior understanding of the law they create. The Executive called me to attend on it at Lille to report on the papers in front of them (ton was somewhat preoccupied - ! - at the time with an unforeseen situation). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 13 19:59:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 19:59:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26376 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 19:59:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from p34s02a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.114.53] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11mZ1a-0001w9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:59:11 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Same directions Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:43:37 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2d78$8134a660$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: Jesper Dybdal Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 10:17 PM Subject: Re: Same directions > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jesper Dybdal >To: BLML >Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 5:00 PM >Subject: Re: Same directions >> >>From: Jesper Dybdal >> >>On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:56:53 -0500, Tim Goodwin >> wrote: >> >>>In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 >>>point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, >we >>>could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and >won. >> >>Yes, but then you would have been cheating (at least if you knew >>L72B2). > Strong language! > >If you deliberately do something that you know is illegal in >order to win, that seems to me to be cheating. > Which is the Law, to which L73B2 refers, apply? > >I assume you mean L72B2: > Yes - a typo. >how about L5? how about L5? I thought L5 would apply in Swiss events, where a team is assigned to specific positions, at specific tables. But what about a head to head say league match where the other provisions of the law would apply.(may select seats from among those assigned to them by mutual agreement) Is this permission to sit the wrong way, if it is by agreement. >But it is interesting that L72B2 does not explicitly mention >regulations as well as the laws; does L72B2 cover L80F >regulations? (I hope it does, but the wording does not say so >directly.) L80F says "not in conflict with these laws". I'm not sure that we've found a law with which a regulation may conflict. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 14 07:39:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 07:39:24 +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 HAA27928 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 07:39:12 +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 PAA19673 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:38:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA02493 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:39:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:39:11 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911132039.PAA02493@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David J. Grabiner" > For example, suppose ... Partner alerts, and explains to the opponents [correctly, but you had forgotten, but your previous bid was still correct for the hand] > There is no way anyone can impose a penalty unless you admit that you used > the UI. However, the Laws still require you to bid 3NT. All true, and I agree that this is what the Laws require now. I have proposed before that correct explanations, properly given, should be considered AI. This is a good example of one of the reasons for that approach. Having unenforceable rules is bad for the game. We saw it in the context of UI; once we had objective standards for score adjustment (1975!), the problems greatly diminished. We are beginning to see the same for illegal deceptions (1997). Relying on people's ethics is all very well, but enforcement of rules via score adjustment is much better. If a rule cannot be enforced via objective standards, with score adjustment for violation, elimination of the rule should receive serious consideration. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 14 13:50:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA28713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:50:28 +1100 (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 NAA28703 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:50:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11mpjv-0008Jz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:50:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:49:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Demonstrable Bridge reason MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk More from BBL Premier League Division 2 (penultimate day) Game All Dealer East West North East South 1S 2H Pass Pass* Pass North thought for some time before passing (North and East screenmates) When dummy appeared East called TD "to reserve rights" - she said at this stage that she had been put off protecting by North's thinking North held x xx A9xxxx 87xx 2H-3 TD recalled at end of hand - North explained that he had a transfer mechanism available to play in 3D - but decided his hand was unsuitable holding two hearts and single spade How do you rule? mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 14 13:50:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA28712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:50:27 +1100 (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 NAA28702 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:50:17 +1100 (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 11mpjy-00089O-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:50:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:39:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Random minors MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm aware that similar issues have been raised recently but would value your opinion The competition is the British Premier League Division 2 (only two days to go) Regulations are the EBU's Orange Book as far as legal conventions are concerned I am called to the table by a pair who query the legality of their opponents' method With a 5 card suit they open that minor but with 3-3 or 4-4 or 4-3 or 3-4 they open 1C or 1D "at random" - these are normally balanced hands where the intention is to rebid in NTs If you press them they will say they have no rules - they "just make up their minds as the mood takes them" - they will tell you the purpose is to avoid giving away information about their minors Do you believe them? Is it legal? mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 14 16:29:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:29:40 +1100 (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 QAA29159 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:29:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-118-223.s223.tnt13.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.118.223]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id AAA24688 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 00:29:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004f01bf2e61$22464840$df76accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 00:28:40 -0500 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: michael amos To: Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 9:49 PM Subject: Demonstrable Bridge reason > More from BBL Premier League Division 2 (penultimate day) > > Game All Dealer East > > West North East South > 1S 2H > Pass Pass* Pass > > > North thought for some time before passing (North and East screenmates) > > When dummy appeared East called TD "to reserve rights" - she said at > this stage that she had been put off protecting by North's thinking > > North held > > x > xx > A9xxxx > 87xx > > 2H-3 > > TD recalled at end of hand - North explained that he had a transfer > mechanism available to play in 3D - but decided his hand was unsuitable > holding two hearts and single spade > > How do you rule? > > mike > -- > michael amos I would need more system info and also want to see if E actually had a reasonable hand to balance with. On the information provided, the hesitation certainly would have conveyed the impression that N was stronger than he actually was. However, N had a (barely) demonstrable bridge reason for pausing for thought. Just because I wouldn't consider bidding on his hand for a second doesn't mean that he thinks the same way. I would rule inadvertent variation in tempo (73D1) rather than illegal deception (73F2). No adjustment. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 14 22:38:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:38:31 +1100 (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 WAA00671 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:38:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-2.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.2]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA09541 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 12:38:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <382BF750.5E75868@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:17:36 +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: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > I thought our sometimes seemingly interminable "Standard of Proof for a > Misbid" thread had run its course, but suddenly it's back, in the form of a > "poster child" example... > Which is why I've suddenly become interested. > At 01:21 AM 11/11/99 -0500, Ed wrote: > > > > >West asked, and 2NT was explained as "18-19 HCP". West passes, and N > > > >E/W call the Director. W says he would have led HA if he'd received a > >correct explanation of North/South's agreement. The TD finds that S had > >meant 2NT as "good/bad", but that, while N and S had discussed it, they had > >not agreed to play it "in this situation". Ruling: result stands. I > >understand this, I think. The TD is saying that since N/S had not agreed > >that good/bad applied here, "18-19-HCP" was a correct explanation of the > >partnership agreement. Mistaken bid, rather than mistaken explanation. > > Ed appears to be right about the TD's thinking, but the TD's logic is > faulty. "N/S had not agreed that good/bad applied here", but (presumably) > they had not agreed that it didn't, so it does not follow that "'18-19' HCP > was a correct explanation". > The TD should have applied the footnote. MI is assumed, not misbid, unless they can prove it. Te TD was too slack in accepting the players' statements as proof, IMHO. > >Now comes my problem. E/W appealed, and the screening director changed the > >ruling to 3NT-3, on the grounds, as I understand it, that S failed to > >disclose his partner's failure to alert 2NT, and that he further failed to > >correct his partner's mistaken explanation prior to the opening lead. I > >infer that the screening director decided that N/S _had_ agreed that 2NT in > >this situation would be good/bad, but the article doesn't say so, or say on > >what basis the TD made his determination. The AC upheld this ruling, saying > >that "the disclosure requirement applies even if the player recognizes that > >he and his partner have different ideas about whether a convention may be > >used in a particular situation." > > I don't think the SD decided that "N-S had agreed that 2NT in this > situation would be good/bad", but rather determined, correctly, that N-S > did not have an agreement either way. > No, the AC decided that in the absence of proof, misinformation must be assumed. This is analogous, but not the same, to ruling that "good/bad" is the agreement. > >It seems to me that a case could be made that S _thought_ they'd agreed to > >play "good/.bad" here, but that N's failure to alert woke him up to the > >fact they hadn't. Yet if one accepts that argument, the AC ruling says that > >he would have had to disclose what was _in fact_ a mistaken bid, not a > >mistaken explanation. This is where I get confused. It seems the committee > >are saying that any discussion of a convention constitutes an agreement to > >play that convention, at least if there's confusion between the partners as > >to when they've agreed to play it. > > I don't think the AC was saying that "discussion of [the] convention > constitute[d] an agreement to play that convention", but rather that > discussion of the convention could, and did, create an ambiguous situation, > in which both N and S were aware, when S bid 2NT, that they hadn't agreed > whether it applied in this situation. > > This is our central "Standard of Proof" thread situation. The SD and AC > seem to have come down firmly one side by ruling that it was N's obligation > to reveal the actual situation, i.e. to disclose that they were in an > uncertain position in which they had agreed to play good/bad, but hadn't > discussed whether it applied in this situation, and, moreover, went even > further by saying that when N failed to do so, S should have recognized > this as MI and offered a correction, notwithstanding the fact that to do so > under these circumstances would have effectively "revealed his hand", > letting the world know that he intended his 2NT as good/bad. > > The opposing school in "Standard of Proof" That's me, I presume. > would argue that N's behavior > was exemplary, insomuch as, knowing that partner's 2NT bid was ambiguous, > he took his best shot at figuring out or guessing which meaning partner > intended, informed his opponents of that meaning at the appropriate time > without revealing that he was in doubt about the correctness of his > explanation, and, when it turned out that his guess was wrong, took the > consequences. > Exactly. > It seems to me that this example demonstrates the wisdom of the position > taken by the SD and the AC. No it does not, the ruling is correct, but the interpretation you ascribe to it below, is not the correct one. > Had N explained the position as ambiguous, > informing his opponents that the partnership had agreed to play good/bad in > some situations but had not agreed as to whether it applied here, he would > have bid 3NT, and W would have had all available information about the N-S > agreements, but wouldn't have had any more clue than N had as to what S had > actually held, and would have known it, and (I'd like to think) would > either have led HA and beaten it or would have led the H8 and wouldn't > have, and none of the TD, the SD nor the AC would have had need to get > involved. > Yes they would have. If North explains "I don't know, I'm going to take it as 18-19, but it might also be good/bad", and then bids 3NT, and W leads the same, W would _still_ be entitled to a score correction. W does not need to protect himself against uncertain explanations. W has the right to be informed that 2NT was intended as "good/bad". W is allowed to act on the basis of "strong", if the explanation is "probably strong, could also be weak". N is not allowed to explain "either weak, or strong" and get away with it, even if he is telling the truth. The TD and AC should still, in the absence of proof to the contrary, rule as if 2NT had the agreement corresponding to the hand, and in that case N's explanation would still be MI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 01:35:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 01:35:07 +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 BAA01539 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 01:34:58 +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 JAA00120 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 09:34:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA02958 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 09:34:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 09:34:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911141434.JAA02958@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > More from BBL Premier League Division 2 (penultimate day) > > North thought for some time before passing (North and East screenmates) > From: "Hirsch Davis" > I would need more system info and also want to see if E actually had a > reasonable hand to balance with. Sorry, but I don't see the relevance of East's hand, at least for the initial determination of whether or not there has been an infraction. I agree about needing the system info, and I'd very much like to know how long "some time" really was. The legal issues are: did North have a genuine bridge problem? I think that has to be considered in the context of the length of hesitation. If North has a "two second problem" and pauses for ten, it seems to me the initial test for adjustment is satisfied. Then there's the question of "could have known." That seems to be satisfied here; pausing with no values might very well inhibit a balance. OK, _if_ the above tests are satisfied, _then_ we look at East's hand. The main question is what adjusted score to assign under L12C2. If it would be "likely"/"at all probable" to balance, we assign scores accordingly to the NOS/OS. Then we also consider whether failure to balance was "irrational, wild, or gambling." If so, the NOS are not protected. The one thing we definitely do not do is say "North, you should have balanced even after the hesitation, so we are not going to protect you against the infraction." Unless, of course, the failure to balance is so bad as to qualify as "irrational, wild, or gambling." From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 03:38:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 03:38:37 +1100 (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 DAA02240 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 03:38:28 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12974 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 17:38:13 +0100 Received: from ip40.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.40), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda12972; Sun Nov 14 17:38:12 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Same directions Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 17:38:12 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <01bf2d78$8134a660$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf2d78$8134a660$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 DAA02241 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:43:37 -0000, "Anne Jones" wrote: >I thought L5 would apply in Swiss events, where a >team is assigned to specific positions, at specific >tables. But what about a head to head say league >match where the other provisions of the law would >apply.(may select seats from among those assigned >to them by mutual agreement) >Is this permission to sit the wrong way, if it is by agreement. I would interpret L5 as generally saying "You are required to follow the Director's instructions in regard to seating". And I am sure that there is a (more or less explicit) instruction about not sitting the same way at both tables. >>But it is interesting that L72B2 does not explicitly mention >>regulations as well as the laws; does L72B2 cover L80F >>regulations? (I hope it does, but the wording does not say so >>directly.) > >L80F says "not in conflict with these laws". >I'm not sure that we've found a law with which a regulation may >conflict. I don't think I understand what you are saying here. If you have infringed a legal L80F-based regulation, have you also infringed a law for the purpose of applying L72B2? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 04:05:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA02339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 04:05:12 +1100 (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 EAA02334 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 04:05:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-60-232.s232.tnt7.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.60.232]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id MAA20481 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 12:04:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002801bf2ec2$3d7e8c60$e83caccf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199911141434.JAA02958@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 12:03:56 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 9:34 AM Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason > > > More from BBL Premier League Division 2 (penultimate day) > > > North thought for some time before passing (North and East screenmates) > > > From: "Hirsch Davis" > > I would need more system info and also want to see if E actually had a > > reasonable hand to balance with. > > Sorry, but I don't see the relevance of East's hand, at least for the > initial determination of whether or not there has been an infraction. > I agree about needing the system info, and I'd very much like to know > how long "some time" really was. > Agreed. The relevence of the E hand, at least to me, would be to determine if there was a reasonable probability that E would have balanced in the event that I found the N call to be a violation under 73F2. If I rule no violation, it is irrelevant. > The legal issues are: did North have a genuine bridge problem? I think > that has to be considered in the context of the length of hesitation. > If North has a "two second problem" and pauses for ten, it seems to me > the initial test for adjustment is satisfied. I'm not entirely comfortable for this. The initial test is a demonstrable bridge reason for a break in tempo. We're going to have to get pretty deep into the mind of the player to determine if a demonstrable bridge reason is worth 2 seconds or 10 seconds worth of pause. We're also going to have to know whether or not the player is a habitual slow thinker, or relatively quick to solve a problem Feasable in club games with regular players, but not at a tournament level, where the TD may have no prior knowledge of the platers. If the demonstrable bridge reason exists, that should be enough. Attempting to quantify it is splitting the hair rather thinly. >Then there's the question > of "could have known." That seems to be satisfied here; pausing with > no values might very well inhibit a balance. > Agreed. > OK, _if_ the above tests are satisfied, _then_ we look at East's hand. > The main question is what adjusted score to assign under L12C2. If > it would be "likely"/"at all probable" to balance, we assign scores > accordingly to the NOS/OS. Then we also consider whether failure to > balance was "irrational, wild, or gambling." If so, the NOS are not > protected. > Agreed. > The one thing we definitely do not do is say "North, you should have > balanced even after the hesitation, so we are not going to protect you > against the infraction." Unless, of course, the failure to balance is > so bad as to qualify as "irrational, wild, or gambling." > No, but we do caution E that any inferences he takes from opponents' breaks in tempo are at his own risk, in the event that his opponent had a demonstrable bridge reason for the break in tempo, or could not have known that the break in tempo might work to his advantage. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 04:39:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA02514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 04:39:25 +1100 (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 EAA02508 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 04:39:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da013601 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 03:30:50 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-222-60.tmns.net.au ([139.134.222.60]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Funky-MailRouter V2.5 17/3200719); 15 Nov 1999 03:30:50 Message-ID: <04f801bf2f65$27cb4ae0$f1de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Same directions Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 04:30:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Kojak wrote: >Which makes me bring out the old adage again. If you don't write good >Conditions of Contest (in this case EBU rules), then you provide for bad >things to happen. I once played in an IMP-scored event where NS and EW had separate fields. Somehow, due to an error by the organisers which the players could not prevent**, one table played heaps of boards back to front, i.e. NS were EW. The nature of the event meant that "no result can be obtained" for the stationary pair at that table for a vast number of boards. The TD ruled that there was an irregularity; L5A had been breached through no fault of the players, and he applied L12C1 and L86A. The latter reads "........average plus or average minus in IMP Play, that score is plus 3 imps or minus 3 imps respectively. L12C1 awards "average plus" i.e. exactly 3 imps, no more, no less, or "average minus" or zero. There were no Conditons of Contest applicable to the situation. The TD also said that he thought that since the Laws seemed to cover the situation, L80F may make conflicting Supplementary Regulations illegal. The massive bonus of something like *35 times 3 imps* to the pair's score caused some discussion. Also, if the World Pairs Final in Lille had have been scored in imps instead of matchpoints, and one of the pairs had have had to sit out all 28 boards, would they have received a score of *plus 84* imps? Does that seem more generous than 60%? Does not *plus 56 imps* feel closer to 60%? Is there a case for L86A in the 21st Century to be different? One possibility is: "that score is at most plus 3 imps...." with an interpretation readily available. Another is to make it "2 imps or the average imps he earned on boards actually played during the session if that average was greater than 2 imps", by analogy with L88 for matchpoints. As Swiss Pairs events are becoming extremely popular in some countries, such a change may be timely. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. ** If anyone is curious, I will find out how it happened. As players, we only observed the outcome, in particular the huge bonus added to one weak pair's score. Luckily, they still did not win the event. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 07:49:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 07:49:12 +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 HAA03237 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 07:49:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-140.access.net.il [213.8.3.140] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03656; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:48:22 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <382F201E.7447E0E7@zahav.net.il> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:48:31 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Dybdal CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911111946.OAA00819@cfa183.harvard.edu> <6DwrOJfD4j9RF5XKHNUfSc84pmXA@bilbo.dit.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ohohohohohoho The Anarchy ...so called democracy .......everyone is free to do everything , bounded to the law !!!!! which hirself (ah ??? ...how do I use the new terminology ??)decided is the right one. And now to the practical "shout" : There is always a true problem to formulate the Laws (any kind of laws) in the most intelligible and useful way. There is an intrinsic conflict trying to deal with "intelligent -> clear and short" and "useful -> detailed and as practical=useful as possible". I think that the logical and practical solution the WBF found is the best existing - it doesn't mean it is very good , but the best : publish a Laws Book - intelligent ; publish a textbook to train the TDs - the commentaries , and train the TDs , especially to understand the SCOPES of the laws and their SPIRIT . As much as I remember the LC of WBF is entitled to interpret the Laws as a Constitutional Tribunal is entitled ; but always the intermediate interpretations (between the releases are published ) must be approved by the executive of the WBF - parliament or government . IMHO anything else can be only a new "door" for doctorates of the Bridge pseudo-lawyers. Sincerely and respectfully Dany Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:46:25 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner > wrote: > > >No author can ever see the ambiguities in his > >own writing! > > Exactly. It seems to me that this thread confirms very clearly > that it is wrong to let the lawmakers be the authoritative > interpreters of the laws they write. > > I can see the advantage of having a WBF body to interpret the > laws - but it should not be the same people who wrote them. > > The ordinary club TD who has never heard of a WBFLC > interpretation rules by the words of the laws. The need to make > those laws clear would become much clearer if even at the highest > levels they were interpreted by their words and not by their > authors' intentions. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 08:08:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:08:41 +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 IAA03318 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:08:33 +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 QAA09462 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA03192 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:08:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:08:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911142108.QAA03192@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems our substantive disagreements are minor, but I'd like to hear more comment on one point: SW> The legal issues are: did North have a genuine bridge problem? I think SW> that has to be considered in the context of the length of hesitation. SW> If North has a "two second problem" and pauses for ten, it seems to me SW> the initial test for adjustment is satisfied. > From: "Hirsch Davis" > I'm not entirely comfortable for this. The initial test is a demonstrable > bridge reason for a break in tempo. We're going to have to get pretty deep > into the mind of the player to determine if a demonstrable bridge reason is > worth 2 seconds or 10 seconds worth of pause. We're also going to have to > know whether or not the player is a habitual slow thinker, or relatively > quick to solve a problem Feasable in club games with regular players, but > not at a tournament level, where the TD may have no prior knowledge of the > platers. If the demonstrable bridge reason exists, that should be enough. > Attempting to quantify it is splitting the hair rather thinly. Is it really? There exist without doubt difficult problems where any amount of thought (within the time limits of the event) can be justified. No argument there. It seems to me, though, that some problems are more a matter of style or method, and while one can justify a few seconds to recognize the problem and weigh the options, long thought is not justified. Examples would be the original problem in this thread (removing from partner's suit into one's own) or whether to escape from 1NT with a 4423 zero-count or whether to double or overcall with a strong hand that could do either. Maybe the distinction between two seconds and ten is too fine, but what about between two seconds and thirty -- or a hundred? Are there cases where a short pause would not have been illegal but a long one is, because even though there is a genuine bridge problem, it is not a sufficient problem to justify the time taken? Comments? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 08:09:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:09:57 +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 IAA03339 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:09:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-140.access.net.il [213.8.3.140] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA09579; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:09:18 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <382F2510.B7A965EB@zahav.net.il> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:09:36 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Dybdal CC: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <000a01bf2ce8$61404520$305108c3@swhki5i6> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that the WBFLC should be the UNIQUE body to write/publish the interpretations -> it is an intrinsic definition : they and only they can tell us - all the TDs and ACs - what were their intentions their philosophy , their main idea etc. etc. etc.... The bridge organizations have to find the way to bring the WBFLC decisions in every club . If the bridge world will be able to do it I am sure that many inadvertent incidents can be avoided. Dany Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:31:13 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Jesper Dybdal > >>I can see the advantage of having a WBF body to interpret the > >>laws - but it should not be the same people who wrote them. > >> > >+=+ The WBF has ordered it this way. That was the > >decision of those who set up the Constitution. The > >WBFLC simply does what it is instructed to do - > >"shall interpret the Laws". > > Yes. I certainly did not mean to imply that the WBFLC is not > doing exactly what its job is. > > > But the observation > >does not take account of the fact that the minutes > >of the WBFLC are subject to ratification by the > >Executive Council of the WBF and only take effect > >when they have been approved by the Executive. > >There are two different bodies involved; further, > >when published to the NCBOs they bear the > >imprint of the highest authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > But does the Executive Council go into the details before > approving, and does it have the law knowledge necessary? One > might suspect that an authoritative interpretation by the WBFLC > would have to be very bad in order for the Executive to stop it. > > I'm not saying that it would be easy in practice to have a > separate body to interpret the laws. In fact, I think it would > be difficult to keep the WBFLC away from the authoritative > rulings and still have a WFBLC that is close enough to the > problems of actually ruling the game to be good at the > law-making. But in an ideal world, they should be separate > bodies. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 10:13:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:13:46 +1100 (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 KAA03962 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:13:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from pbbs06a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.166.188] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11n8pZ-0000we-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 15:13:09 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Same directions Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:14:20 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf2ef5$fec2aea0$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: BLML Date: Sunday, November 14, 1999 5:01 PM Subject: Re: Same directions >On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:43:37 -0000, "Anne Jones" > wrote: > >>I thought L5 would apply in Swiss events, where a >>team is assigned to specific positions, at specific >>tables. But what about a head to head say league >>match where the other provisions of the law would >>apply.(may select seats from among those assigned >>to them by mutual agreement) >>Is this permission to sit the wrong way, if it is by agreement. > >I would interpret L5 as generally saying "You are required to >follow the Director's instructions in regard to seating". And I >am sure that there is a (more or less explicit) instruction about >not sitting the same way at both tables. > >>>But it is interesting that L72B2 does not explicitly mention >>>regulations as well as the laws; does L72B2 cover L80F >>>regulations? (I hope it does, but the wording does not say so >>>directly.) >> >>L80F says "not in conflict with these laws". >>I'm not sure that we've found a law with which a regulation may >>conflict. > >I don't think I understand what you are saying here. If you have >infringed a legal L80F-based regulation, have you also infringed >a law for the purpose of applying L72B2? What I am saying is that any regulation is legal as long as it does not conflict with any of the Laws (L80F.) However such a regulation does not become a Law. If the SO in formulating its regulations, made a regulation like Law 74B2 which said, you may not deliberately disobey a regulation, even though there is a penalty you are prepared to accept, then there would be no problem. I do not think however that Law 74B2 applies to regulations, when it says it applies to Laws. Yes the regulation is Law for that event, but I think L74B2 applies to Laws 1-93 of the Laws of DCB 1997, not any other Law. Before a player can be found guilty of an infraction of Law, the penalties for doing so he is prepared to accept, (Law72B2)we must find a law that he has broken. I expressed the opinion that Law 5 is not that Law in the simulation given, provided the event is not Swiss, when the seating instructions are given in writing. Instructions (more or less explicit) are just not not good enough as we all know. Last weekend I set up 14 tables with table numbers, bidding boxes, stationary, boards, and chairs. Yet a team of Grand Masters sat at a 15th table having fetched their own chairs and could not understand why they did not understand the instructions for the first move! They complained that I had not told them to sit at a numbered table and I had to admit I had not done so. I though the instruction was (more or less) explicit. Silly me. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 11:02:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:02:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04205 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:02:47 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id 1.0.220d70ea (4197); Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:00:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.220d70ea.2560a72a@aol.com> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:00:42 EST Subject: Re: Same directions 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: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/14/99 12:40:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, GillP@bigpond.com writes: > Also, if the World Pairs Final in Lille had have been scored in imps instead > of matchpoints, and one of the pairs had have had to sit out all 28 boards, > would they have received a score of *plus 84* imps? Does that seem > more generous than 60%? Does not *plus 56 imps* feel closer to 60%? > > Is there a case for L86A in the 21st Century to be different? > One possibility is: "that score is at most plus 3 imps...." with an > interpretation readily available. > Another is to make it "2 imps or the average imps he earned on > boards actually played during the session if that average was greater > than 2 imps", by analogy with L88 for matchpoints. As Swiss Pairs > events are becoming extremely popular in some countries, such a > change may be timely. > > Peter Gill Dear Peter, to the best of my recollection the pairs who were required to sit out boards were given the percentage of their game on the other boards for these boards. I'm not sure where you got the 84 IMPs figure. The Executive Committee of the WBF decided that the application of Law 86 (providing 3 IMPs to sitouts -- no fault of theirs) was particularly inappropriate to this event where a total score of LESS THAN 60% was sure to win! They were right, as shown by the winning percentage ( in my opinion). That it should never have happened is another subject. Or that there were alternative ways of recovering from the goof-up is also not addressed here. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 11:05:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:05:21 +1100 (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 LAA04239 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:05:12 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id n.0.5cc1c13c (4197); Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:04:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.5cc1c13c.2560a806@aol.com> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:04:22 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: dhh@zahav.net.il, jesper@dybdal.dk 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 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/14/99 3:52:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, dhh@zahav.net.il writes: > Ohohohohohoho > > The Anarchy ...so called democracy .......everyone is free to do > everything , bounded to the law !!!!! which hirself (ah ??? ...how do > I use the new terminology ??)decided is the right one. > > And now to the practical "shout" : > > There is always a true problem to formulate the Laws (any kind of laws) > in the most intelligible and useful way. There is an intrinsic conflict > trying to deal with "intelligent -> clear and short" and > "useful -> detailed and as practical=useful as possible". > > I think that the logical and practical solution the WBF found is the > best existing - it doesn't mean it is very good , but the best : > publish a Laws Book - intelligent ; publish a textbook to train the TDs > - the commentaries , and train the TDs , especially to understand the > SCOPES of the laws and their SPIRIT . > > As much as I remember the LC of WBF is entitled to interpret the Laws > as a Constitutional Tribunal is entitled ; but always the intermediate > interpretations (between the releases are published ) must be approved > by the executive of the WBF - parliament or government . > > IMHO anything else can be only a new "door" for doctorates of the Bridge > pseudo-lawyers. > > Sincerely and respectfully > > Dany > > All I can say,( and I' going to, at the risk of offending anyone) is that this is a nice, clear, concise evaluation of the matter. Reading thw Laws in context would, IMO, make many of the threads meaningless. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 11:07:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:07:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04274 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:07:50 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id n.0.40538420 (4197); Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:06:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.40538420.2560a89b@aol.com> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:06:51 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: dhh@zahav.net.il, jesper@dybdal.dk 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 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/14/99 4:10:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, dhh@zahav.net.il writes: > The bridge organizations have to find the way to bring the WBFLC > decisions in every club . If the bridge world will be able to do it > I am sure that many inadvertent incidents can be avoided. > > Dany > Always nice to run into a positive dreamer. You leave little "wiggle room" for the BL's if your principle were to be in full effect. Keep up the good work. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 16:05:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:05:42 +1100 (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 QAA05741 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:05:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:57:34 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <382BF750.5E75868@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 00:00:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Herman De Wael writes: >W does not need to protect himself against uncertain >explanations. Which suggests, perhaps, that it is best not to give such. >W has the right to be informed that 2NT was intended as >"good/bad". My understanding is that this is only true if that is the actual partnership agreement - and perhaps if it isn't, but S thought at the time he bid it that it was. (I don't recall ever seeing this distinction discussed, which of course doesn't mean it hasn't been.) >W is allowed to act on the basis of "strong", if the >explanation is "probably strong, could also be weak". >N is not allowed to explain "either weak, or strong" and get >away with it, even if he is telling the truth. Weak and strong are relative terms. "Either weak, or strong" in context means to me "at least , but unlimited". Why should that explanation be disallowed? And if it is disallowed, how do you explain the meaning of, say, a natural 1S response to a SA or Acol 1m opening (which most texts I've seen describe as 6+ points, unlimited - IOW, weak, or strong)? 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/AwUBOC+Ukr2UW3au93vOEQLGagCeNMRYsVGqJ1wRMaHvFA5NnuvvgD4AoP3i 34nLSBRFbt0mkijL11IZqh72 =GXVk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 19:52:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:52:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com [139.134.5.197]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA06671 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:52:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba871781 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:51:52 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-108-77.tmns.net.au ([139.134.108.77]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Venomous-MailRouter V2.6 11/46450); 15 Nov 1999 18:51:50 Message-ID: <008b01bf2fe5$d1adae60$4d6c868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Same directions Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:51:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Kojak wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: > >> Also, if the World Pairs Final in Lille had have been scored in imps instead >> of matchpoints, and one of the pairs had have had to sit out all 28 boards, >> would they have received a score of *plus 84* imps? Does that seem >> more generous than 60%? Does not *plus 56 imps* feel closer to 60%? >> >> Is there a case for L86A in the 21st Century to be different? >> One possibility is: "that score is at most plus 3 imps...." with an >> interpretation readily available. >> Another is to make it "2 imps or the average imps he earned on >> boards actually played during the session if that average was greater >> than 2 imps", by analogy with L88 for matchpoints. As Swiss Pairs >> events are becoming extremely popular in some countries, such a >> change may be timely. >> >> Peter Gill > >Dear Peter, to the best of my recollection the pairs who were required to >sit out boards were given the percentage of their game on the other boards >for these boards. I'm not sure where you got the 84 IMPs figure. The >Executive Committee of the WBF decided that the application of Law 86 >(providing 3 IMPs to sitouts -- no fault of theirs) was particularly >inappropriate to this event where a total score of LESS THAN 60% was sure to >win! They were right, as shown by the winning percentage ( in my opinion). >That it should never have happened is another subject. Or that there were >alternative ways of recovering from the goof-up is also not addressed here. My Lille analogy was only a hypothetical situation. I used Lille in the analogy only to save space in describing that type of situation, which has arisen not just in Lille but all over the world at times of course. My posting was not meant to refer to Lille in any other way. Those of us who were playing in the Pairs Final respected the wisdom of the WBF decision. The 84 imp figure arose in my hypothetical situation because L86 awards the players 3 imps per board, no more, no less. There is no discretion in L86 (imps), unlike L88 (matchpoints) in which 60% is not the only possible score to award to the innocent pair(s). Similarly in L12C1 there is no discretion regarding imps, but there is discretion regarding matchpoints. There is also a very curious implication in L12C1 that pairs events are always scored by matchpoints. The same implication may also be in L88. I did not mean to imply that 60% was awarded in Lille. I was referring to a hypothetical situation. The reference to 60% is that if I were to score *plus 84 imps* in an imp-scored Pairs session, I would regard it as equivalent to a matchpoint score of between 65 and 70%. I know that I am not alone in this view. Note that I am referring to what the Laws should say, not to Lille. L12B seems to say that the Director cannot award other than 3 imps. L93B3 seems to restrict the AC and TC in the same way, unless the Zonal organisation decrees otherwise for special events. In Australia and I believe in England, there has been a massive change from matchpoint pairs to imps-scored pairs congresses in recent years. This makes discussion of the above points worthwhile, IMO. Sorry that my previous posting wasn't clear. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 15 23:14:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:14:36 +1100 (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 XAA07704 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:13:51 +1100 (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 NAA25942 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:11:55 +0100 Message-ID: <382FF89D.BA5D0639@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:12:13 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: careless v irrational References: <199911082309.SAA27894@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000901bf2a51$05f01180$9e5fac3e@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At any rate, while the debate continues, I see no reason to attempt to > impose my views. Once again, my thanks to those who have shed some > light on what to me has always been a difficult (and relevant) area. > Ton Kooijman told me some months ago that claims were easy and I ought > not to make a fuss abouth them; perhaps they are, and perhaps I > oughtn't. I leave you with a case from this year's Lederer tournament > (a top invitational event here in London; all players supposedly of > international class): > > K742 > 654 > J1032 > 65 > > A3 > 108 > AK9854 > AQ8 > > West North East South > 1H 2D > Pass 3D Pass 3H > Pass 4D Pass 5D > All pass > > West leads H7, East wins the jack and continues with the queen, West > playing the 3 (consistent with a doubleton). Declarer (Boris Schapiro) > claims, tabling his cards and saying: "I know how to play this hand. > If the club finesse works, I make it, otherwise I go down, but if West > has three diamonds I go down anyway." West has three small hearts and > the singleton queen of diamonds; East has the king of clubs (in a > 3-5-2-3 shape). Does declarer make his contract? Would he make it if > West had three hearts and DQx? > > David Burn > London, England I've sent this case to the two Polish best TDs. The funny thing is that they differ in their opinions so both sides will get some support. Here we are: Slawomir Latala: I have been watching this thread on BLML and have no doubts: 5D made. Schapiro made a very clear claim statement. The contract will go down _only_ if _West_ is the possessor of three diamonds to the queen. If it's East then Boris will run the DJ having cashed the diamond top first. Hence, he ruffs low. He _did say all that_ (implicitly but he did). Conclusion is straightforward - 11 tricks. Jan Romanski: I have a very strong impression that declarer failed to see the H3 and had he kept playing instead of claiming he would have won with ease. Generally the claim statement suggests that the declarer's intention was to ruff and then play trumps in some normal way. But still the ruling should be one down. The relevant laws: L68D: "Play ceases..." L70A: "In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." Footnote to Laws 69,70,71: "<> includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." Ruffing the heart high, coming back to dummy and running the jack (it was East who opened the bidding) is a "careless or inferior" play. Of course, someone might point out that if one wants to run the jack then one might ruff a heart with the nine right away. But it looks that declarer was not in full control of the board and the play mentioned above is certainly not irrational. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Nov 16 02:48:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:20 +1100 (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 CAA09037 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:04 +1100 (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 11nOCB-000IcJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:37:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:04:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Same directions References: <008b01bf2fe5$d1adae60$4d6c868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <008b01bf2fe5$d1adae60$4d6c868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >In Australia and I believe in England, there has been a massive change >from matchpoint pairs to imps-scored pairs congresses in recent years. Not in England. I think you are confused by our swing towards Swiss Pairs - but we score Swiss Pairs by match points. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 03:40:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:40:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA09397 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:40:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from pe2s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.227] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nPAX-0005St-00; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:39:54 -0800 Message-ID: <000a01bf2f87$e2e4d040$e38393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anna Gudge" , "David Stevenson" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: The bite of the Underdog? Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:37:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:37:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nOC1-000IcJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:37:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:07:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.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 Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:38:31 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: >> I said "other than legal means". > >Nobody here is suggesting that you may communicate with partner >through anything other than legal means. That is not my view of this thread. >And happy birthday to Quango! He only received twenty emails on his birthday: still that is better than Nanki Poo's fifteen [and my two]! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 03:49:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:49:25 +1100 (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 DAA09451 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:49:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca996036 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:48:32 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-223-203.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.203]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Teeny-Weeny-MailRouter V2.6 9/87435); 16 Nov 1999 02:48:32 Message-ID: <022601bf3028$69156c60$cbdf868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:47:50 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: >Personally, >I am not averse to abiding by the WBF LC interpretation, at least as long >as my own SO remains mute on the the issue, although I can't remember the >last time I felt the urge to ask such a question myself. My copy of the 1997 FLB has a section called *Scope and Interpretation of the Laws*. Wouldn't it be a good idea for this section to mention the existence of WBFLC Interpretations? Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 03:53:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:12 +1100 (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 CAA09023 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:37:54 +1100 (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 11nOC8-0006ld-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:37:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:02:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Same directions References: <04f801bf2f65$27cb4ae0$f1de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <04f801bf2f65$27cb4ae0$f1de868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >Is there a case for L86A in the 21st Century to be different? >One possibility is: "that score is at most plus 3 imps...." with an >interpretation readily available. Certainly the EBU has different figures for different methods of scoring. The legality is interesting. >Another is to make it "2 imps or the average imps he earned on >boards actually played during the session if that average was greater >than 2 imps", by analogy with L88 for matchpoints. Fine. > As Swiss Pairs >events are becoming extremely popular in some countries, such a >change may be timely. Having read this with puzzlement a couple of times, inspiration has dawned. Do you mean that you play Swiss Pairs as imp-scored pairs? We have found that Swiss pairs scored by Match Points has taken over as the most popular event in England. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 16 04:06:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 04:06:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from slot2-7.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (root@slot2-7.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.5.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA09562 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 04:06:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-38.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA06525 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:56:50 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:56:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Same directions Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At the risk of sounding like a BL, what if all four pairs agree to play *very sound* openings ;-). For example, all players require at least 24 HCP to open the bidding. There was a somewhat serious discussion of this some time back in rgb. One of the drawbacks was that the bridge wouldn't be very exciting if two pairs playing it met ;-). If, and this is a pretty big if, this was the case, I really don't see how the CTD could do much about it. The real issue here is the collusion, no? Bruce Schoderb@aol.com wrote: : In a message dated 11/11/99 7:50:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, : Dburn@btinternet.com writes: :> I bet that if the regulations in respect of :> those offences had been applied, no one would have got any VPs. : Yes they were applied, in a sense, in that the Chief TD (wasn't me) gave them : zero VPs without much legal baseing thereof, and one large sized chewing out. : It was also the result of an argument often proposed by Kaplan that if you : are playing to win the event you can do whatever the conditions don't : prohibit you to do as long as you don't violate the Laws. His purpose was to : put pressure on the authorities to write better conditions. We often argued : whether a good purpose is sullied by proposing questionable practices. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 04:53:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:16 +1100 (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 CAA09033 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:01 +1100 (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 11nOC8-000NTb-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:37:30 +0000 Message-ID: <0g4NffAr3BM4EwNm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:51:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Same directions References: <382A3287.BE4B53B8@mail.telepac.pt> <3.0.6.32.19991111155653.00820340@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991111155653.00820340@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 04:15 AM 11/11/99 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>For matches where no bridge is played one can assign a score based on >>VPs alone. In this specific case the EBU has a regulation that awards >>8/20, and other figures for other scales. It is based on a concept of >>40%/40% - both sides entirely at fault. > >In the last Swiss event I played in, my team needed only 3 VPs (on a 20 >point scale) in the final match to clinch victory. Playing in the EBU, we >could have "mistakenly" sat in the same direction as our teammates and won. > Alas, we were not so clever and managed tolose the event by 1 VP. You would have been given 0-0, I can assure you. We are not quite as naive as you think! At our panel TD weekends we have discussed the case where two teams both need a draw to qualify, so 10-10 will do them fine. We considered: [a] They agree 10-10 and go to the pub [b] They pass all eight hands out at both tables [c] They play rationally but by agreement hand in a 10-10 score 0-0 was considered automatic in all cases. The only real discussion was whether they should be reported to the NA for further action. I seem to remember it was felt that [a] was less reprehensible than the other two. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 05:11:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:30 +1100 (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 CAA09056 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:11 +1100 (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 11nOCC-000Idg-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:37:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:13:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason References: <004f01bf2e61$22464840$df76accf@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <004f01bf2e61$22464840$df76accf@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >I would need more system info and also want to see if E actually had a >reasonable hand to balance with. On the information provided, the >hesitation certainly would have conveyed the impression that N was stronger >than he actually was. However, N had a (barely) demonstrable bridge reason >for pausing for thought. Just because I wouldn't consider bidding on his >hand for a second doesn't mean that he thinks the same way. I would rule >inadvertent variation in tempo (73D1) rather than illegal deception (73F2). >No adjustment. L73D1 states: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. Do not forget the word "Otherwise"! Inadvertent variations in tempo do constitute an infraction where the second sentence is breached, and adjustments can follow 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 Tue Nov 16 05:14:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:02 +1100 (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 CAA09009 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:37:44 +1100 (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 11nOC2-000NTb-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:37:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:30:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911111944.OAA13106@pluto.math.uga.edu> In-Reply-To: <199911111944.OAA13106@pluto.math.uga.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >I have been rather bemused and saddened by the vitriolic vehemence of >some of the opposition to Mike's views. At the beginning of this debate, >his opinions were dismissed rudely and without counterargument (Why am I >wrong? Because you're wrong!) by people I have come to respect in the >past for their clear, careful and logical arguments. In his place, I would >have felt offended, belittled, exasperated, and generally p***ed off. If you read Mike's views, and more importantly the way they are expressed, then they have tended to lend themselves to creating this sort of response. Quite frankly, I have lost interest in Mike's views, because he is merely repeating what he has said before. But the way he says it, and the way that he confronts people over this, make it very difficult to stay out of this thread, and his approach has dragged me in. I have nothing more to say on semantic interpretation. I just find the whole argument incredibly distasteful because I ***loathe*** the idea of being allowed to direct partner's bidding or defence and I ***cannot*** believe we are allowed to do so. I suppose I could kill the thread and not read it. That would keep me out of it. But I feel I should keep reading. Whatever anyone else thinks, I feel that I have to read BLML because I find a feeling that certain types of things can be explained better by me - often details rather than the main arguments. I thus tend to read everything whether I have much interest or not. And unfortunately that way I have been dragged in again into this thread - and have today answered another post of Mike's aimed straight at me. It is difficult not to. I think if Mike wants to protect himself against direct replies of a somewhat tasteless sort he should not post in a style that asks for such replies. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 16 05:37:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 05:37:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10028 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 05:37:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:37:41 -0800 Message-ID: <002601bf2f96$ba68e660$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <022601bf3028$69156c60$cbdf868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:24:56 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > Michael Dennis wrote: > >Personally, > >I am not averse to abiding by the WBF LC interpretation, at least as long > >as my own SO remains mute on the the issue, although I can't remember the > >last time I felt the urge to ask such a question myself. > > > My copy of the 1997 FLB has a section called > *Scope and Interpretation of the Laws*. Peter is looking at the British edition of the Laws, no doubt. The ACBL edition's title for this section is merely "Scope of the Laws." The reason for the difference is that the British edition includes some interpretative material in the Scope, while the ACBL edition puts that material (with slightly different wording) into the Preface. Don't understand why there should be a difference. > Wouldn't it be a good idea for this section to > mention the existence of WBFLC Interpretations? Yes. With a firm statement that those interpretations have the same force of law as the Laws themselves. Every version of the Laws on various web sites should include WBFLC interpretations as an addendum. That could be done now. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 05:51:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:18 +1100 (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 CAA09029 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:37:58 +1100 (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 11nOC2-0006ld-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:37:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:34:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <000a01bf2ce8$61404520$305108c3@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 Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:31:13 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jesper Dybdal >>>I can see the advantage of having a WBF body to interpret the >>>laws - but it should not be the same people who wrote them. >>> >>+=+ The WBF has ordered it this way. That was the >>decision of those who set up the Constitution. The >>WBFLC simply does what it is instructed to do - >>"shall interpret the Laws". > >Yes. I certainly did not mean to imply that the WBFLC is not >doing exactly what its job is. > >> But the observation >>does not take account of the fact that the minutes >>of the WBFLC are subject to ratification by the >>Executive Council of the WBF and only take effect >>when they have been approved by the Executive. >>There are two different bodies involved; further, >>when published to the NCBOs they bear the >>imprint of the highest authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >But does the Executive Council go into the details before >approving, and does it have the law knowledge necessary? One >might suspect that an authoritative interpretation by the WBFLC >would have to be very bad in order for the Executive to stop it. > >I'm not saying that it would be easy in practice to have a >separate body to interpret the laws. In fact, I think it would >be difficult to keep the WBFLC away from the authoritative >rulings and still have a WFBLC that is close enough to the >problems of actually ruling the game to be good at the >law-making. But in an ideal world, they should be separate >bodies. This reminds me of the legislative and the executive in running the United Kingdom. Parliament makes the Laws, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet execute them. Obviously, one would not want the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to be involved in making the Laws. I wonder why the Prime Minister is always the leader of the majority party in parliament? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 16 06:07:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:08 +1100 (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 CAA09008 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:37:43 +1100 (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 11nOC1-000NTa-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:37:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@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 03:38 PM 11/11/99 +0000, David wrote: >> I said "other than legal means". You have quoted two situations where >>the Laws specifically give you a right to communicate. Thus these are >>legal means. > >The Laws also give you the specific right to ask questions of the >opponents. But obviously you understand that. > >If we presume (as I understand that you do) that L73B1 on its face outlaws >"partner's benefit" questions, then arguments to the effect that it is >permissible to ask such questions anyway might indeed seem "shocking", in a >way, but that is not what I have been trying to argue. > >If instead we start from the neutral stance of "how should we interpret the >language of L73B1 to best serve the interests of the game, while keeping >faith with the actual text?", the picture becomes more complex. We should >be clear, in defending one interpretation or the other, what underlying >bridge values are either promoted or retarded by our chosen interpretation. > >I understood from your comments that you were, implicitly, defending your >preferred interpretation on the basis that preventing communication by >means other than bids or plays is an important bridge value, and that your >interpretation of the Law was more consistent with that principle. My >remarks were directed at that proposition. I have lost interest in the logic approach to this thread. There has been too much talking. I just would not want to play bridge with people who consider it legal to direct partner's play and defence by such means. That is not bridge. I consider to ask for partner's benefit to be cheating. I consider that people who do so know that they are directing partner's bidding or defence in a game where they know they are not permitted to. I don't give a monkey's fart for difficulties on the borderline as a reason to allow cheating: that is a BL argument. You decide what is legal, what is illegal, and you then judge any situation, either as a player judging what hew is permitted to do, or as a TD/AC deciding whether what a player did was legal. I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their partner how to bid or defend. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 16 06:20:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:22 +1100 (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 CAA09032 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:38:01 +1100 (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 11nOC8-000NTa-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:37:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:42:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Protect yourself References: <4gyO$RAZ4hK4EwcT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <008901bf2c7d$6ee1f720$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <008901bf2c7d$6ee1f720$622ed2cc@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: > >David Stevenson wrote: >> Ian D Crorie wrote: >> > >> >It seems that the general point David Burn wanted us to consider has >> >been ignored, perhaps for the very good reason that it's a can of >> >worms. To what extent should a player be expected to protect him/her >> >self from a possible incorrect/incomplete/misleading explanation? >> > >> >I remember a local case some years ago. I may misremember some >> >details but that's not important. The auction was the common: >> > >> > 1C 1S Dbl ? >> > >> >where the double wasn't alerted as required by local alert rules and >> >4th seat had around an eight count and HTx in spades. He didn't raise >> >and didn't get an adjustment later when the double turned out to have >> >been negative. It was clear there was damage but the TD's view, >> >and that of a majority of his peers, was that he should have protected >> >himself by asking (no CCs were available but let's ignore that aspect >> >for now as a side issue). >> > >> >I've always felt uneasy about it. What happens if you ask and discover >> >that it is indeed penalty? Is your LHO not now in a position where >> >a pull is more attractive, since your question strongly suggests >> >you were thinking of raising? Or might it jog his memory if he has >> >not alerted because he has forgotten the system? If you ask, discover >> >it is a penalty double and pass, information arising from the question >> >is UI for partner and may give him a problem on borderline hands. >> >And all because we are expected to protect ourselves from a possible >> >incorrect explanation by an *opponent*. >> >> The EBU regulation is carefully worded. Unlike the equivalent ACBL >> regulation, which suggests you should be asking. > >Not exactly, David, if we have the same regulation in mind. > >The ACBL Alert Procedure says, "Players who, by experience or expertise, >recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement >will be expected to protect themselves." Note that it does not say "protect >the partnership," and that inexperienced players are not held to this >standard. > >Penalty doubles of overcalls after a one-level natural suit opening are so >rare in ACBL-land that I don't think any expert would normally be denied >redress if an unAlerted penalty double caused damage. If you read the >regulation carefully, an experienced or expert player must have *recognized* >the failure to Alert if redress is to be denied. While I often disagree with you, Marv, it is very rare because you seem to have lost the logical thread, so I respectfully suggest you go back and read what you are replying to: I believe you misread it. Ian has pointed out that someone might have problems asking a question and not ask as a result: that is not a decision an inexperienced player will think of! I merely suggest that not asking for that reason gives you better protection under the EBU reg than under the ACBL reg. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 16 06:47:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:27:55 +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 GAA10263 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:27:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-185.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.185]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA11788; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:27:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003d01bf2b2b$b1b3c540$b9b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , "michael amos" Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:09:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is very important to start establishing the facts when a TD has to make a ruling. Is it true that North started with a bid out of turn, desperately wanting to psych this hand? Or did East, South and West all three pass a 12 counter before and wasn't this worth mentioning? After which North decided to open the bidding with this holding? I am somewhat confused. >More from BBL Premier League Division 2 (penultimate day) > >Game All Dealer East > >West North East South > 1S 2H >Pass Pass* Pass > > >North thought for some time before passing (North and East screenmates) > >When dummy appeared East called TD "to reserve rights" - she said at >this stage that she had been put off protecting by North's thinking > >North held > >x >xx >A9xxxx >87xx > >2H-3 > >TD recalled at end of hand - North explained that he had a transfer >mechanism available to play in 3D - but decided his hand was unsuitable >holding two hearts and single spade Does this sound as if NS were prepared to psyche this kind of hand? Should South bid 3D in stead of 3S with for example three spades and three diamonds? The less hearts and spades I have (and diamonds in stead of those) the more I like to play in diamonds. We try to give the TD a more serious role in making decisions as you can read in the CoP. I don't like what happened at all. I would give this NS the worst score possible and if they are not appealing that decision I will report it to the AC myself. Reading the result I understand that south had a hand with which Edgar Kaplan would have doubled ( he didn't play negative doubles), and with which this South expected his partner to double. Nothing to do about that. (This all assuming that the facts are not too deviating from the description as given) ton > >How do you rule? > >mike >-- >michael amos > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 07:38:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:27:55 +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 GAA10264 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:27:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-185.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.185]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA11809; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:27:30 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003e01bf2b2b$b28df8a0$b9b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , "michael amos" Subject: Re: Random minors Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:28:38 +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 In my country it is legal, no regulations forbidding it. I am always too proud when telling the following. In the sixties I played EKAS, a then modern American System developed by Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold, with 5c majors. We had to open our best three card minor with 4333 (3433). And that is what was on the conventioncard (of course). But after a couple of weeks we indepently had discovered that opening the weaker minor was a much better strategy, as long as we didn't change our conventioncard. And so I won my first masterpoints. Not long thereafter I started studying the laws and had to tell my partner that we had to change our style. It probably would have been better to change the conventioncard, alerts were not done that time, but that didn't fit with my planned career as a TD. Now you understand that I have sympathy with this pair, that tries to solve this dilemma within the legal range, so it seems. But still I advise their opponents to make the first lead in the shown suit. Probably nobody is able to make these decisions randomly, without the help of a watch or something similar. Those aids are not permitted, isn't it? That might lead to the conclusion that there is no full disclosure of the agreements, even if the pair itself isn't aware of its agreements. Reason not to accept it. What a game we are playing, I like it. ton -----Original Message----- From: michael amos To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, November 14, 1999 4:18 AM Subject: Random minors >I'm aware that similar issues have been raised recently but would value >your opinion > >The competition is the British Premier League Division 2 (only two days >to go) > >Regulations are the EBU's Orange Book as far as legal conventions are >concerned > >I am called to the table by a pair who query the legality of their >opponents' method > >With a 5 card suit they open that minor but with 3-3 or 4-4 or 4-3 or >3-4 they open 1C or 1D "at random" - these are normally balanced hands >where the intention is to rebid in NTs > >If you press them they will say they have no rules - they "just make up >their minds as the mood takes them" - they will tell you the purpose is >to avoid giving away information about their minors > >Do you believe them? >Is it legal? > >mike >-- >michael amos > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 08:14:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:14:42 +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 IAA10801 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:14:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg85.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.65.5]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA25745 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:14:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991115161115.013368dc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:11:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:17 PM 11/15/99 +0000, David wrote: > I have lost interest in the logic approach to this thread. There has >been too much talking. > > I just would not want to play bridge with people who consider it legal >to direct partner's play and defence by such means. That is not bridge. On this we agree, 100%. Can you refer me to the post(s) in which I have suggested anything to the contrary, so that I can clear up the confusion? Thanks. Mike From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 08:28:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:28:16 +1100 (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 IAA10880 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:28:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16720 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:27:58 +0100 Received: from ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.198), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda16718; Mon Nov 15 22:27:50 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:27:50 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <000a01bf2ce8$61404520$305108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id IAA10881 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:34:03 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > This reminds me of the legislative and the executive in running the >United Kingdom. Parliament makes the Laws, the Prime Minister and the >Cabinet execute them. Obviously, one would not want the Prime Minister >and his Cabinet to be involved in making the Laws. I wonder why the >Prime Minister is always the leader of the majority party in parliament? I do believe that you also have a system of courts, which is deliberately made independent of the parliament, and which is responsible for law interpretation. The separation between law-making and law interpretation that I would like in bridge is actually very carefully observed in real life in many countries - including, as far I know, yours and mine. I haven't really misunderstood that, have I? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 08:33:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:33:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10939 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:33:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-119-81.s81.tnt2.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.119.81]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18946 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:33:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004001bf2fb0$efc3cf40$5177accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <003d01bf2b2b$b1b3c540$b9b4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:32:28 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: ton kooijman To: ; michael amos Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 10:09 PM Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason > It is very important to start establishing the facts when a TD has to make a > ruling. Is it true that North started with a bid out of turn, desperately > wanting to psych this hand? Or did East, South and West all three pass a 12 > counter before and wasn't this worth mentioning? After which North decided > to open the bidding with this holding? I am somewhat confused. > > If I'm reading it correctly, E dealt and opened 1S. S overcalled 2H, which was followed by 3 passes. E did not balance, on the basis that the hesitation by N before passing suggested values. The question is whether the contemplation of a possible transfer to diamonds is a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the hesitation or if there is a violation of 73F2. Hirsch > >More from BBL Premier League Division 2 (penultimate day) > > > >Game All Dealer East > > > >West North East South > > 1S 2H > >Pass Pass* Pass > > > > > >North thought for some time before passing (North and East screenmates) > > > >When dummy appeared East called TD "to reserve rights" - she said at > >this stage that she had been put off protecting by North's thinking > > > >North held > > > >x > >xx > >A9xxxx > >87xx > > > >2H-3 > > > >TD recalled at end of hand - North explained that he had a transfer > >mechanism available to play in 3D - but decided his hand was unsuitable > >holding two hearts and single spade > > Does this sound as if NS were prepared to psyche this kind of hand? Should > South bid 3D in stead of 3S with for example three spades and three > diamonds? The less hearts and spades I have (and diamonds in stead of > those) the more I like to play in diamonds. > > We try to give the TD a more serious role in making decisions as you can > read in the CoP. I don't like what happened at all. I would give this NS > the worst score possible and if they are not appealing that decision I will > report it to the AC myself. > Reading the result I understand that south had a hand with which Edgar > Kaplan would have doubled ( he didn't play negative doubles), and with which > this South expected his partner to double. Nothing to do about that. > > (This all assuming that the facts are not too deviating from the description > as given) > > ton > > > > >How do you rule? > > > >mike > >-- > >michael amos > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 08:45:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:45:38 +1100 (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 IAA11025 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:45:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.179] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11nTw3-000L1R-00; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:45:15 +0000 Message-ID: <000301bf2fb2$ac750ea0$b35208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , , "michael amos" Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:30:13 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; michael amos Date: 15 November 1999 20:09 Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason >It is very important to start establishing the facts when a TD has to make a >ruling. Is it true that North started with a bid out of turn, desperately >wanting to psych this hand? Or did East, South and West all three pass a 12 >counter before and wasn't this worth mentioning? After which North decided >to open the bidding with this holding? I am somewhat confused. > > >>More from BBL Premier League Division 2 (penultimate day) >> >>Game All Dealer East >> >>West North East South >> 1S 2H >>Pass Pass* Pass >> >>-- +=+ I take it the Spade opener is from East? 2H by South? ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 08:47:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:37:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11001 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:37:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16753 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:37:28 +0100 Received: from ip169.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.169), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda16751; Mon Nov 15 22:37:18 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:37:18 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <003d01bf2b2b$b1b3c540$b9b4f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <003d01bf2b2b$b1b3c540$b9b4f1c3@kooijman> 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 IAA11004 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:09:14 +0100, "ton kooijman" wrote: >It is very important to start establishing the facts when a TD has to make a >ruling. Is it true that North started with a bid out of turn, desperately >wanting to psych this hand? Or did East, South and West all three pass a 12 >counter before and wasn't this worth mentioning? After which North decided >to open the bidding with this holding? I am somewhat confused. > > >>More from BBL Premier League Division 2 (penultimate day) >> >>Game All Dealer East >> >>West North East South >> 1S 2H >>Pass Pass* Pass You are reading the original message in a proportional spacing font, probably one that shows the "1S" below the word "North". If you use a fixed-pitch font, you will see that it is actually below "East". Board diagrams and bidding sequences are only shown correctly if the writer and the reader both use either the exact same font (which is practically impossible, since we do not all have the same e-mail program configurations and the same fonts available) or a fixed-pitch font. >Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:09:14 +0100 Incidentally, your computer's clock is very much wrong (making your message appear before all the other ones of the this thread in programs that sort messages of a thread by their time stamp). -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 09:34:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:34:54 +1100 (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 JAA11356 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:34:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA16920 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:34:38 +0100 Received: from ip47.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.47), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda16917; Mon Nov 15 23:34:33 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:34:33 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.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 JAA11357 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > I just would not want to play bridge with people who consider it legal >to direct partner's play and defence by such means. Neither do I. But helping a novice partner to understand what goes on during the bidding in general - which is what I believe this discussion is about - has nothing to do with "directing partner's play and defence", and would IMO probably make a game that includes a novice more pleasant for everybody. It can indeed be difficult for a TD to distinguish between this and "directing partner's play and defense" - but probably not more difficult that it currently is to distinguish between a question asked for partner's benefit and a question asked because the asker thought he needed the answer. My opinion here may be influenced by the fact that the concept of a pro playing with a client is almost completely unknown in Denmark. That situation may in practice give problems with which I am not familiar - if that is so, it may be one of the factors that can make it sensible to have laws allowing for local interpretations. > I consider to ask for partner's benefit to be cheating. Isn't it you, David, who always tell us that using the word "cheating" is acceptable only under certain circumstances, one of which is that the offender knows that his action is illegal? If it is illegal - as it currently is in yours, Mike's, and my countries, and internationally - then, under some circumstances, it may be cheating. We are discussing whether it ought to be legal - and if it were legal, it most definitely would not be cheating. I use "legal" here in the sense of "legal by the generally accepted interpretation of the law". And indeed I have no doubt that the WBFLC interpretation is generally accepted as well as authoritative. But that does not mean that it is necessarily the best interpretation for the game. > I consider >that people who do so know that they are directing partner's bidding or >defence in a game where they know they are not permitted to. That is probably not much wrong. Many of those who do so _now_, under the current authoritative interpretation which does not permit it, probably do know. But that seems irrelevant in a discussion about whether it ought to be legal to ask in order to help partner follow the bidding. > I don't give a monkey's fart for difficulties on the borderline as a >reason to allow cheating: that is a BL argument. "Allow cheating"? If something is allowed, it is not cheating. What you seem to be saying is that you feel very strongly that the current WBFLC interpretation is good for the game. Fine (and contrary to some with the same position, you have actually in this thread provided a real argument for that position). But why do you need to use words like "cheating" to tell us that you like the current WBFLC interpretation? > You decide what is >legal, what is illegal, and you then judge any situation, either as a >player judging what hew is permitted to do, or as a TD/AC deciding >whether what a player did was legal. Yes. > I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their >partner how to bid or defend. Of course they know - at least in places like Denmark where the authorities have been telling them that for years. But that is not what this discussion is about. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 10:07:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:07:19 +1100 (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 KAA11581 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:07:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-119-81.s81.tnt2.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.119.81]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA29036 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:13:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001301bf2fbe$0aac02c0$5177accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <004f01bf2e61$22464840$df76accf@hdavis> Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:06:11 -0500 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: Monday, November 15, 1999 10:13 AM Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >I would need more system info and also want to see if E actually had a > >reasonable hand to balance with. On the information provided, the > >hesitation certainly would have conveyed the impression that N was stronger > >than he actually was. However, N had a (barely) demonstrable bridge reason > >for pausing for thought. Just because I wouldn't consider bidding on his > >hand for a second doesn't mean that he thinks the same way. I would rule > >inadvertent variation in tempo (73D1) rather than illegal deception (73F2). > >No adjustment. > > L73D1 states: > > It is desirable, though not always > required, for players to maintain steady > tempo and unvarying manner. However, > players should be particularly careful > in positions in which variations may > work to the benefit of their side. > Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the > tempo or manner in which a call or play > is made does not in itself constitute a > violation of propriety, but inferences > from such variation may appropriately be > drawn only by an opponent, and at his > own risk. > > Do not forget the word "Otherwise"! Inadvertent variations in tempo > do constitute an infraction where the second sentence is breached, and > adjustments can follow 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 ~ > IMO it is not the word "otherwise" that determines whether or not a variation in tempo represents an infraction, but rather the conditions in 73F2. This laws puts forth two tests: 1) There must be no demonstrable bridge reason for the action. 2) The player might have known that the action could have worked to his benefit. If these conditions are met, then indeed the variation represents an infraction. 73F " 2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." One of the paradoxes of the game is that it is a game of thought, and yet, when a player takes the time to think, he can limit his partner's actions (L16 situations) or actually be guilty of an infraction himself (as is possible above). We thus have to tread a very fine line. We don't want to punish a player for thinking. At the same time, we need to have a mechanism to adjust (and possibly punish) where a deliberate and illegal communication or deception has been perpetrated. So, we use the "might have known" criterion in 73F2, or the "demonstrably have been suggested" criterion in L16A to adjust, regardless of whether or not the actual infraction we are trying to catch (deliberate deception, or use of UI, respectively) has been committed. It's very easy to fall into the trap of treating a hesitation as an infraction, be it L16 or 73. The use of the hesitation is the infraction under L16, while only those hesitations that meet the criteria of L73F2 are actual infractions. I tend to approach a hesitation situation very carefully, having seen way too many situations where a hesitation was punished without any regard for whether or not there was an actual violation of L16 or L73. My strong preference is to have the hands decided at the table, if possible, rather than by me or by an AC. I have been greatly encouraged by some of Rich Colker's recent columns in the Washington Bridge League Bulletin, in which he has been arguing that a player should be given the time to interpret a complex auction without triggering a penalty for the hesitation (my apologies to Rich if I am oversimplifying his position too much). IMO this is a very healthy departure from the "if it hesitates, shoot it" school. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 10:17:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:17:15 +1100 (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 KAA11665 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:17:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.79] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11nVMo-000PQb-00; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:16:58 +0000 Message-ID: <000401bf2fbf$7c5d1fc0$4f5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:59:27 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >The separation between law-making and law interpretation that I >would like in bridge is actually very carefully observed in real >life in many countries - including, as far I know, yours and >mine. > >I haven't really misunderstood that, have I? >-- +=+ I think it a false comparison. Examine what happens in other competitions, games and sports. We are talking about the rules of a game. I also think it is impractical to suppose that the rules can be written by one body and interpreted by another; they have to mean what they were intended to mean and the legislators should disentangle any intricacies of meaning argued from the niceties of language. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 10:17:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:17:16 +1100 (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 KAA11666 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:17:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.79] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11nVMp-000PQb-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:17:00 +0000 Message-ID: <000501bf2fbf$7d143ac0$4f5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Random minors Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:12:45 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 ; michael amos Date: 15 November 1999 21:04 Subject: Re: Random minors > >-----Original Message----- >From: michael amos >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Sunday, November 14, 1999 4:18 AM >Subject: Random minors > >> >>Regulations are the EBU's Orange Book as far as legal conventions are >>concerned >> >>I am called to the table by a pair who query the legality of their >>opponents' method >> >>With a 5 card suit they open that minor but with 3-3 or 4-4 or 4-3 or >>3-4 they open 1C or 1D "at random" - these are normally balanced hands >>where the intention is to rebid in NTs >> +=+ Orange Book: 9.1.5 - "You may not have an agreement to make random calls". [This may or may not have been intended for such a case, but the words being what they are I see nothing to say it does not apply. It seems to me that the partnership is required to specify the basis of its choice of bid.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 10:36:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:36:15 +1100 (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 KAA11742 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:36:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.82] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11nVfD-00007V-00; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:35:59 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bf2fc2$245563c0$525208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:26:30 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 15 November 1999 22:55 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: > >We are discussing whether it ought to be legal - and if it were >legal, it most definitely would not be cheating. > >That is probably not much wrong. Many of those who do so _now_, >under the current authoritative interpretation which does not >permit it, probably do know. But that seems irrelevant in a >discussion about whether it ought to be legal to ask in order to >help partner follow the bidding. > +=+ I have not been a party to that discussion. The one I have been occupied with was a discussion on what the law actually is. This does not need to be supported by argument as to what is good for the game, and I have not commented upon that question. If I did I would not be favouring any change, other than a tightening of the words. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 12:37:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:37:02 +1100 (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 MAA12349 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:36:49 +1100 (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 11nXXx-000Pmq-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:36:38 +0000 Message-ID: <9A8GiYA+6KM4Ewez@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:09:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Same directions In-Reply-To: <0g4NffAr3BM4EwNm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <0g4NffAr3BM4EwNm@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes snip > At our panel TD weekends we have discussed the case where two teams >both need a draw to qualify, so 10-10 will do them fine. We considered: > >[a] They agree 10-10 and go to the pub >[b] They pass all eight hands out at both tables >[c] They play rationally but by agreement hand in a 10-10 score > > 0-0 was considered automatic in all cases. The only real discussion >was whether they should be reported to the NA for further action. I >seem to remember it was felt that [a] was less reprehensible than the >other two. > I've had long discussion with other TDs about this and am hard put to find a regulation which prohibits a partnership deciding to play "pass throughout". It is not forcing. I'd still award 0-0 but that's me being practical :)) 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 Nov 16 12:36:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:36:58 +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 MAA12348 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:36:49 +1100 (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 11nXXx-000GKI-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:36:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:16:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Same directions In-Reply-To: <008b01bf2fe5$d1adae60$4d6c868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <008b01bf2fe5$d1adae60$4d6c868b@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes > >In Australia and I believe in England, there has been a massive change >from matchpoint pairs to imps-scored pairs congresses in recent years. >This makes discussion of the above points worthwhile, IMO. You probably think Swiss Pairs in the UK is imps. It's matchpoints. There is very little Imp pairs (butler scoring) in the UK. Swiss pairs is just that. Play 8 boards (duplicated) against one pair. (104 pairs, 52 tables, 13 sets of 1-8, 2 boards per table put out and passed down through four tables) Score across the field. Convert the matchpoint percentage to VP (c.68% is 20-0). Assign new opponents based on VPs. Do it again. Repeat until bored, TDs fall down shlepping boards, boredom sets in, the bomb goes off, the pubs close or whatever. Declare a winner. (The pair with the highest VP score) chs john > >Sorry that my previous posting wasn't clear. > >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 Tue Nov 16 12:37:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:37:02 +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 MAA12354 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:36:53 +1100 (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 11nXXx-000GKM-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:36:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:29:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Random minors In-Reply-To: <000501bf2fbf$7d143ac0$4f5108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000501bf2fbf$7d143ac0$4f5108c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott writes >>> >>>I am called to the table by a pair who query the legality of their >>>opponents' method >>> >>>With a 5 card suit they open that minor but with 3-3 or 4-4 or 4-3 or >>>3-4 they open 1C or 1D "at random" - these are normally balanced hands >>>where the intention is to rebid in NTs >>> >+=+ Orange Book: 9.1.5 - "You may not have an >agreement to make random calls". [This may or >may not have been intended for such a case, >but the words being what they are I see nothing >to say it does not apply. It seems to me that >the partnership is required to specify the basis >of its choice of bid.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I think this becomes an excellent exercise in saddle point theory. If you open your better minor 99% of the time, and tell the opponents so then the hundredth time they make the wrong lead. If you open your worse minor 99% of the time the same thing happens. If you open each with 50% frequency then they won't get close to 99% "best opening lead", probably about 65% (They'll have their minor longer in the suit they should be leading a bit more often). There is a saddle point at which the frequency of opening the 3 or 4 card suit maximises your chance of getting a favourable lead. This can easily be based on an algorithm which you keep hidden from partner. A modulus of dealer, vulnerablity, proximity of hearts and spades, round being played would give a large enough number to provide a decent modulus with 100. If the modulus is less than the crucial value, "psyche", else bid the long one. "Partner uses an algorithm which I do not know which is not based on minor suit holding to determine which to open with a perceived frequency of 55% shorter and 45% longer" Legal IMO chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 12:39:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:39:49 +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 MAA12374 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:39:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp204-133.worldonline.nl [195.241.204.133]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA00724; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:39:27 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <012801bf2fd3$85705640$85ccf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "michael amos" Subject: Re: Random minors Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:40:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Amos wrote: >I'm aware that similar issues have been raised recently but would value >your opinion > >The competition is the British Premier League Division 2 (only two days >to go) > >Regulations are the EBU's Orange Book as far as legal conventions are >concerned > >I am called to the table by a pair who query the legality of their >opponents' method > >With a 5 card suit they open that minor but with 3-3 or 4-4 or 4-3 or >3-4 they open 1C or 1D "at random" - these are normally balanced hands >where the intention is to rebid in NTs > >If you press them they will say they have no rules - they "just make up >their minds as the mood takes them" - they will tell you the purpose is >to avoid giving away information about their minors > >Do you believe them? >Is it legal? > >mike >-- >michael amos > I do not believe them, for a very simple reason that I tried to explain in an earlier thread started by Anne Jones, I think - unfortunately I misdirected my mail at the time, and by the time I found out the discussion had taken a turn in a different direction. My objection is that randomizing is not a mental process, but a mechanical one. If somebody tosses a coin to decide, that'll be allright with me; but if I make a decision it cannot be random: I may be influenced by the fact that I've opened 1D three times in a row, so it's now time to open 1C again, I may decide against opening 1C because the face values of my three cards in clubs add up to an odd number, you name it. But my decision will never be perfectly random. I have no opinion on whether it's legal or not, but for the above reason I am dead against anybody playing a "random" agreement. Jac Fuchs From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 12:47:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:47:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12423 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:46:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:46:29 -0800 Message-ID: <004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com><000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6><3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com><90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:32:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I consider to ask for partner's benefit to be cheating. I consider > that people who do so know that they are directing partner's bidding or > defence in a game where they know they are not permitted to. > > I don't give a monkey's fart for difficulties on the borderline as a > reason to allow cheating: that is a BL argument. You decide what is > legal, what is illegal, and you then judge any situation, either as a > player judging what hew is permitted to do, or as a TD/AC deciding > whether what a player did was legal. > > I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their > partner how to bid or defend. > I'm on David's side of this fence, but there remains a problem. When I know that the opponents are committing MI by an inadequate explanation in answer to an Alert query, then I am aware of an infraction of the Laws. Is it not required that I call the TD forthwith? Answer is no, because L9A says "may call an attention to an irregularity," not must. The question then is: Should an ethical player call the TD, or not, when s/he hirself has not been misled by the MI? Assuming the answer is no, and the subsequent auction and/or play make it obvious that one's side has been damaged by the MI, the TD should provide redress. However, the TD may not agree on the issue of damage, and there you are. Had you called the TD earlier, the MI would have been corrected and the damage averted. It seems to me that good ethics do not require that a player let opponents get away with a damaging infraction. An example from actual play: My RHO opened a weak notrump, I doubled, and next hand passed. The pass was Alerted and then explained, "The pass forces me to redouble." My inexperienced partner, thinking RHO must have a good hand (and that there are 50 HCP in the pack), got them off the hook by bidding. The explanation should have been, "That's a conventional forcing pass, not indicating a willingness to play one notrump doubled, and requiring that I redouble. Partner could have any of a number of possible hands, usually weak, but possibly strong. Would you like to know more?" After the deal was completed, the TD ruled no MI, saying this was a common understanding, and I'm afraid I blew my stack. Now, what can I do to prevent this sort of crap? Doesn't it make sense that it would be ethically okay to call the TD at the time of the MI and get the explanation corrected? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 13:01:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:01:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12510 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:01:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:01:00 -0800 Message-ID: <004c01bf2fd4$86881260$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4gyO$RAZ4hK4EwcT@blakjak.demon.co.uk><008901bf2c7d$6ee1f720$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Protect yourself Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:47:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > > > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> The EBU regulation is carefully worded. Unlike the equivalent ACBL > >> regulation, which suggests you should be asking. > > > >Not exactly, David, if we have the same regulation in mind. > > > >The ACBL Alert Procedure says, "Players who, by experience or expertise, > >recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement > >will be expected to protect themselves." Note that it does not say "protect > >the partnership," and that inexperienced players are not held to this > >standard. > > > >Penalty doubles of overcalls after a one-level natural suit opening are so > >rare in ACBL-land that I don't think any expert would normally be denied > >redress if an unAlerted penalty double caused damage. If you read the > >regulation carefully, an experienced or expert player must have *recognized* > >the failure to Alert if redress is to be denied. > > While I often disagree with you, Marv, it is very rare because you > seem to have lost the logical thread, so I respectfully suggest you go > back and read what you are replying to: I believe you misread it. I don't give a r---'s a-- (a---) what the thread is about. I'm concerned about the knock against the ACBL's (fictional) regulation. > > Ian has pointed out that someone might have problems asking a question > and not ask as a result: that is not a decision an inexperienced player > will think of! I merely suggest that not asking for that reason gives > you better protection under the EBU reg than under the ACBL reg. > And I merely suggest that there is no ACBL reg that suggests what you claim. If there is, please quote it. It would better for all of us to quote regulations or Laws rather than to dredge up what we remember from our potentially biased memory banks. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 13:11:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:11:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12557 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:11:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:11:26 -0800 Message-ID: <006d01bf2fd5$f917f6a0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000401bf2fbf$7c5d1fc0$4f5108c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:52:33 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > I also think it is impractical to suppose > that the rules can be written by one body > and interpreted by another; they have to > mean what they were intended to mean > and the legislators should disentangle any > intricacies of meaning argued from the > niceties of language. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > A wise man once wrote that the true intent of a law lies not in the words themselves, but in the mind of the person who wrote the words. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 13:36:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:36:51 +1100 (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 NAA12702 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:36:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nYTy-0003q3-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:36:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:32:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Reply-To: Paul Barden Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason In-Reply-To: <004f01bf2e61$22464840$df76accf@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The full hand was: Game All 3 Dealer East 6 5 A 9 8 6 3 2 9 7 5 4 A 10 K J 9 8 6 2 J 8 7 4 3 9 10 5 4 K Q J 7 A K 8 J 2 Q 7 5 4 - - 1S 2H A K Q 10 2 P P ? none Q 10 6 3 North's pause before passing was agreed to be 10 to 15 seconds. At the other table in the same match, East did protect with a double, but the contract went only one off (top club lead, East playing the jack). At this table, 2H went three off (top club lead, East playing the 2, then trump switch. Declarer might still have made seven tricks I think). Another possibility to consider is that East might have protected with 2S, and played in 4S. -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 14:16:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA12824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:16:52 +1100 (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 OAA12819 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:16:44 +1100 (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 11nZ6f-000F1C-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:16:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:12:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes snip > >My RHO opened a weak notrump, I doubled, and next hand passed. The pass was >Alerted and then explained, "The pass forces me to redouble." My >inexperienced partner, thinking RHO must have a good hand (and that there >are 50 HCP in the pack), got them off the hook by bidding. The explanation >should have been, "That's a conventional forcing pass, not indicating a >willingness to play one notrump doubled, and requiring that I redouble. >Partner could have any of a number of possible hands, usually weak, but >possibly strong. Would you like to know more?" > >After the deal was completed, the TD ruled no MI, saying this was a common >understanding, and I'm afraid I blew my stack. Whilst it is a common understanding, the explanation itself is incomplete. Supposing partner was green and came from Mars where they play Martian 1NT of 20-22. Partner would never have heard of the agreement and would be confused. (As was your pard) The TD failed you I'm afraid. However your partner did stop playing bridge, so I'd have considered "result stands", because they could have pursued the matter themselves. I'd have asked the redoubler to change their explanation in future as they could now see it caused a problem for weaker players, and your wording would be fine. > >Now, what can I do to prevent this sort of crap? Doesn't it make sense that >it would be ethically okay to call the TD at the time of the MI and get the >explanation corrected? > Play with my son Stephen. It's very frustrating :))) >Marv (Marvin L. French) > 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 Nov 16 16:58:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:58:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from slot0-28.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-28.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13630 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:58:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-28.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA01811 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:57:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:57:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings, I think the TD got it wrong. If NS are playing Good/Bad 2N, isn't this an obvious sequence where it applies? It's hard to construct a simpler example! If I agreed to GB2N with no other discussion and had this sequence I would assume that it applied here. It seems pretty clear that the failure to alert was MI and the adjustment proper. This ruling still troubles me though. Let's say that the situation was not quite as clear as this one; NS had agreed two different rules -- the first rule said yes, it was on and the second rule said no, it wasn't! I believe that North should alert and explain, if asked, that the situation is ambiguous by their agreements. He should explain further, at the opponents' discretion, the exact source of the ambiguity. Let's say events continued as in the original case. - North incorrectly guesses the 18-19 point hand and bids 3N. - West leads the H8 and lets the game through. If NS are now off the hook, I'm happy. North has disclosed all relevant agreements and the opponents know everything he knows. If NS are adjusted after revealing all pertinent agreements, then I'm unhappy. I agree with Anne Jones' comment in the previous thread to the effect that "being helpful shouldn't always mean the opponents are on a good board". Bruce bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au wrote: : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- : Hash: SHA1 : ++++ : "I am only an egg." -- Valentine Michael Smith, in Robert Heinlein's : _Stranger in a Strange Land_. : ++++ : Just got my latest ACBL Bulletin, and I'm "some perplexed" by Jon : Brissman's latest column ("Appeals: My View"). So I thought I'd ask here if : the case makes sense to you all. :-) : It's a Board-A-Match, West, in third seat, not vulnerable, holds: : S Q4 : H AT8 : D JT62 : C 7653 : The bidding goes: : E S W N : P 1C P 1S : 2H 2NT : West asked, and 2NT was explained as "18-19 HCP". West passes, and N bids : 3NT, ending the auction. : West leads the 8 of hearts, and declarer wins the singleton king in dummy, : takes 6 clubs in hand and the AK of diamonds, making his contract. The four : hands were: : S KJ53 : H K : D K985 : C Q8 : S Q4 S AT87 : H AT8 H QJ7632 : D JT62 D Q3 : C 7653 C 2 : S 96 : H 954 : D A7 : C AKJT94 :{TD rules result stands. Overruled by SD. AC upholds SD, claims it is :absolutely clearcut.} From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 18:41:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:41:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13997 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:41:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:40:54 -0800 Message-ID: <009501bf3003$e6f64e80$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:25:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: John (MadDog) Probst > Marvin L. French wrote: > snip > > > >My RHO opened a weak notrump, I doubled, and next hand passed. The pass was > >Alerted and then explained, "The pass forces me to redouble." My > >inexperienced partner, thinking RHO must have a good hand (and that there > >are 50 HCP in the pack), got them off the hook by bidding. The explanation > >should have been, "That's a conventional forcing pass, not indicating a > >willingness to play one notrump doubled, and requiring that I redouble. > >Partner could have any of a number of possible hands, usually weak, but > >possibly strong. Would you like to know more?" > > > >After the deal was completed, the TD ruled no MI, saying this was a common > >understanding, and I'm afraid I blew my stack. > > Whilst it is a common understanding, the explanation itself is > incomplete. Supposing partner was green and came from Mars where they > play Martian 1NT of 20-22. Partner would never have heard of the > agreement and would be confused. (As was your pard) The TD failed you > I'm afraid. > > However your partner did stop playing bridge, so I'd have considered > "result stands", because they could have pursued the matter themselves. Craig will no doubt make some remark about my two-headed partner. I believe Lille Interpretation #3 set the record straight concerning annullment of redress. A non-offender has to do something irrational, wild, or gambling in order to lose redress for damage. The criterion is no longer (if it ever was) that the NOS must "play bridge." That my partner didn't know enough to ask the right questions or realize what was going on was perhaps ignorant, but not irrational. Anyway, I like John's approach. Don't do anything to help partner, even if it means ignoring an MI infraction. Then, if there is damage, try to get redress. It may be futile, but that's another thread. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 18:49:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:49:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14071 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:48:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:48:49 -0800 Message-ID: <00a901bf3005$00cf0440$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:34:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I believe Lille Interpretation #3 set the record straight concerning > annullment of redress. I meant annulment. Annul, annulled, annulling, annulment. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 19:11:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:11:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14124 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:10:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [212.140.100.109] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11ndhH-0000vT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:10:39 +0000 Message-ID: <001901bf3009$edc346e0$6d648cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Fw: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:09:37 -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 > A wise man once wrote that the true intent of a law lies not in the > words themselves, but in the mind of the person who wrote the words. > Marv (Marvin L. French) I think that must have been Ernie Wise. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 19:14:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:14:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14145 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:14:39 +1100 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id 3.0.27f929fd (3979); Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:13:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.27f929fd.25626c45@aol.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:13:57 EST Subject: Re: Fw: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: Dburn@btinternet.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 38 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/16/1999 3:12:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, Dburn@btinternet.com writes: << > A wise man once wrote that the true intent of a law lies not in the > words themselves, but in the mind of the person who wrote the words. > Marv (Marvin L. French) I think that must have been Ernie Wise. David Burn London, England >> Or John Wiser? Karen From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 20:26:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:26:57 +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 UAA14535 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:26:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-12-21.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.12.21]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA11613 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:26:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38302829.41F1A63A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:35:05 +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: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > Herman De Wael writes: > > >W does not need to protect himself against uncertain > >explanations. > > Which suggests, perhaps, that it is best not to give such. > My point exactly ! > >W has the right to be informed that 2NT was intended as > >"good/bad". > > My understanding is that this is only true if that is the actual > partnership agreement - and perhaps if it isn't, but S thought at the time > he bid it that it was. (I don't recall ever seeing this distinction > discussed, which of course doesn't mean it hasn't been.) > My point is that, by the footnote, the TD will have to rule as if the intention of the bidder IS the agreement. So unless they can prove otherwise, this is what should have been told to the opponents, and if it wsn't, then that is MI. Please understand me very well, I am not saying that this IS their agreement, I am saying that the TD will rule as if it is. Which is of course only another way of saying that it is to be considered their agreement. > >W is allowed to act on the basis of "strong", if the > >explanation is "probably strong, could also be weak". > >N is not allowed to explain "either weak, or strong" and get > >away with it, even if he is telling the truth. > > Weak and strong are relative terms. "Either weak, or strong" in context I was using shorthand. I was not trying to say that either explanation would be correct, but just that "A, but perhaps B" is, towards opponents and as far as MI is concerned, exactly the same explanation as "I think it's A", or simply "A", and that it is MI if it turns out to be B. > means to me "at least , but unlimited". Why should that > explanation be disallowed? And if it is disallowed, how do you explain the > meaning of, say, a natural 1S response to a SA or Acol 1m opening (which > most texts I've seen describe as 6+ points, unlimited - IOW, weak, or > strong)? > > Regards, > > Ed > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 21:36:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:36:24 +1100 (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 VAA14981 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:36:16 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA16166 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:35:38 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:35 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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: > >Nobody here is suggesting that you may communicate with partner > >through anything other than legal means. > > That is not my view of this thread. > The thread covered quite a lot of ground but here is a brief summary as I saw it. A "continuum" of "asking for partner's benefit" was identified ranging From: Asking questions to draw attention to a particular feature of ones own hand - Unanimously considered to be illegal. Via: Asking a question to wake partner up to something about opponents hands he has obviously missed - Mostly considered illegal under L73B1 but a minority felt it was legal (most (all?) of that minority felt it would be illegal under the WBFLC interpretation of L73B1). To: Asking a question when partner is a novice and you know oppos have given MI. A minority felt (and still feels), pretty strongly, that permitting this type of question would be good for the game. A very small minority (possibly only me) believed that the WBFLC interpretation was never intended to cover this sort of situation. The "official view" is that WBFLC interpretations are effectively amendments of the law rather than situationally specific interpretations. The "binding" nature of WBFLC interpretations was examined. It soon became clear that such interpretations are definitely binding on WBF and Zonal events. They are also "binding" on NCBOs (unless the NCBO doesn't want them to be). There seemed to be tacit agreement that this "binding" took effect (at WBF/NCBO level) once the interpretation had been officially endorsed and communicated by the WBF (and that this communication had occurred). The jury still seems to be out on whether official communication from an NCBO to affiliated clubs was a necessary step in making it binding at club level, and indeed as whether any such communication was taking place. Obviously I have missed out a lot of the debate (and diatribe) and quite possibly some facts as well (there were quite a few posts). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 16 23:47:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:47:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from dynamite.com.au (m1.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15546 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:47:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from bridge (isp447.canb.dynamite.com.au [202.139.69.193]) by dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA29145; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:46:58 +1100 Message-ID: <000d01bf3030$fa5c9c40$c1458bca@dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:49:07 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 9:35 PM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > In-Reply-To: > David Stevenson wrote: > > >Nobody here is suggesting that you may communicate with partner > > >through anything other than legal means. > > > > That is not my view of this thread. > > > The thread covered quite a lot of ground but here is a brief summary as I > saw it. > > A "continuum" of "asking for partner's benefit" was identified ranging > From: Asking questions to draw attention to a particular feature of ones > own hand - Unanimously considered to be illegal. > > Via: Asking a question to wake partner up to something about opponents > hands he has obviously missed - Mostly considered illegal under L73B1 but > a minority felt it was legal (most (all?) of that minority felt it would > be illegal under the WBFLC interpretation of L73B1). > > To: Asking a question when partner is a novice and you know oppos have > given MI. A minority felt (and still feels), pretty strongly, that > permitting this type of question would be good for the game. A very small > minority (possibly only me) believed that the WBFLC interpretation was > never intended to cover this sort of situation. The "official view" is > that WBFLC interpretations are effectively amendments of the law rather > than situationally specific interpretations. This is a game where as far as applying the law is concerned you cannot treat novices and experienced players differently. On a purely practical level, who is to determine when a player is inexperienced ( and therefore allowed to be coached by h.* experienced partner's questions) and more importantly how do you tell these players that suddenly they are no longer novices and that the questions that partner has asked , for their benefit are now illegal? It is far better for a novice to understand that one set of rules applies to ALL players. Sean Mullamphy. > The "binding" nature of WBFLC interpretations was examined. It soon became > clear that such interpretations are definitely binding on WBF and Zonal > events. They are also "binding" on NCBOs (unless the NCBO doesn't want > them to be). > > There seemed to be tacit agreement that this "binding" took effect (at > WBF/NCBO level) once the interpretation had been officially endorsed and > communicated by the WBF (and that this communication had occurred). The > jury still seems to be out on whether official communication from an NCBO > to affiliated clubs was a necessary step in making it binding at club > level, and indeed as whether any such communication was taking place. > > Obviously I have missed out a lot of the debate (and diatribe) and quite > possibly some facts as well (there were quite a few posts). > > Tim West-Meads > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 00:14:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:14:58 +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 AAA15649 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:14:47 +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 11niRL-0002Ux-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:14:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:00:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.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 Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: >> I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their >>partner how to bid or defend. >Of course they know - at least in places like Denmark where the >authorities have been telling them that for years. But that is >not what this discussion is about. Oh, yes it is. Some people are saying that there is an acceptable interpretation that they should be allowed to help partner in his play or defence by asking questions designed with the sole purpose of giving him that help. I believe that to be cheating. I am surprised that certain people on this list do not consider it cheating. As for referring to Norman Kay as a novice, I am surprised at you, Jesper. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 17 00:14:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:14:57 +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 AAA15648 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:14:44 +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 11niRE-0002UG-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:14:28 +0000 Message-ID: <0WSmBPAe2KM4EwfR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:04:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <000401bf2fbf$7c5d1fc0$4f5108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <000401bf2fbf$7c5d1fc0$4f5108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> >>The separation between law-making and law interpretation that I >>would like in bridge is actually very carefully observed in real >>life in many countries - including, as far I know, yours and >>mine. >> >>I haven't really misunderstood that, have I? >>-- >+=+ I think it a false comparison. Examine >what happens in other competitions, games >and sports. We are talking about the rules >of a game. > I also think it is impractical to suppose >that the rules can be written by one body >and interpreted by another; they have to >mean what they were intended to mean >and the legislators should disentangle any >intricacies of meaning argued from the >niceties of language. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I too am one of the people who believe that it would be better if the WBFLC were not the interpreting body. I do not believe they are the best at interpreting the Laws - because in any area the people that write them will be too close to them to see the problems. I think Laws such as 25B, the opening lead out of turn law, and such like show the problems. OK, the WBFLC *is* defined as the interpreter - but they are unlikely to do the job as well as an independent body set up for the task. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 17 00:14:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:14:57 +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 AAA15647 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:14:44 +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 11niRE-0002UH-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:14:28 +0000 Message-ID: <5GAllTAX8KM4Ewf9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:10:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason References: <004f01bf2e61$22464840$df76accf@hdavis> <001301bf2fbe$0aac02c0$5177accf@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <001301bf2fbe$0aac02c0$5177accf@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 10:13 AM >Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason > > >> Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> >I would need more system info and also want to see if E actually had a >> >reasonable hand to balance with. On the information provided, the >> >hesitation certainly would have conveyed the impression that N was >stronger >> >than he actually was. However, N had a (barely) demonstrable bridge >reason >> >for pausing for thought. Just because I wouldn't consider bidding on his >> >hand for a second doesn't mean that he thinks the same way. I would rule >> >inadvertent variation in tempo (73D1) rather than illegal deception >(73F2). >> >No adjustment. >> >> L73D1 states: >> >> It is desirable, though not always >> required, for players to maintain steady >> tempo and unvarying manner. However, >> players should be particularly careful >> in positions in which variations may >> work to the benefit of their side. >> Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the >> tempo or manner in which a call or play >> is made does not in itself constitute a >> violation of propriety, but inferences >> from such variation may appropriately be >> drawn only by an opponent, and at his >> own risk. >> >> Do not forget the word "Otherwise"! Inadvertent variations in tempo >> do constitute an infraction where the second sentence is breached, and >> adjustments can follow therefrom. >IMO it is not the word "otherwise" that determines whether or not a >variation in tempo represents an infraction, but rather the conditions in >73F2. This laws puts forth two tests: > >1) There must be no demonstrable bridge reason for the action. >2) The player might have known that the action could have worked to his >benefit. > >If these conditions are met, then indeed the variation represents an >infraction. > >73F " 2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception >if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false >inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has >no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at >the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the >Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." > >One of the paradoxes of the game is that it is a game of >thought, and yet, when a player takes the time to think, he can limit his >partner's actions (L16 situations) or actually be guilty of an infraction >himself (as is possible above). We thus have to tread a very fine line. We >don't want to punish a player for thinking. At the same time, we need to >have a mechanism to adjust (and possibly punish) where a deliberate and >illegal communication or deception has been perpetrated. That is the point I am trying to make: we also want to adjust - and the Law requires us to adjust - when a completely unintentional deception has occurred which could have been avoided with more care. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 17 01:48:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:48:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15765 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:47:56 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id q.0.653d336d (4399); Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:47:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.653d336d.2562ba63@aol.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:47:15 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/16/99 8:18:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > OK, the WBFLC *is* defined as the interpreter - but they are unlikely > to do the job as well as an independent body set up for the task. I think the comparison with Executive versus Legislative re interpretation is misleading, as are most analogies. Having the interpretations made by essentially, though not in all instances, the WBFLC covers the bases just fine in avoiding all the foufrara going on about what the INTENT of the words is. Mark those which are open to local interpretation, and then the rest become binding on the NCBOs. The Executive acceptance of these interpretations also covers the case of having an LC go off the track. I would like to see the WBFLC follow some different procedures on arriving at an interpretation than is presently used, but that is a internal procedure that will be discussed (unless stepped on by a point of order) in Bermuda. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 02:06:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:06:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f83.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA16204 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:06:52 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 44449 invoked by uid 0); 16 Nov 1999 15:06:14 -0000 Message-ID: <19991116150614.44448.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:06:13 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:06:13 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > A wise man once wrote that the true intent of a law lies not in the > > words themselves, but in the mind of the person who wrote the words. > > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > I think that must have been Ernie Wise. > > David Burn >London, England > > It certainly wasn't Denis Wise. Norm. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 02:33:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:33:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt11-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.171]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16279 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:32:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from pf3s11a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.171.244] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nLcL-0007N9-00; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:52:21 +0000 Message-ID: <000301bf3047$9e3751a0$f4ab93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , Subject: Re: Fw: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:29:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: Dburn@btinternet.com ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 16 November 1999 08:29 Subject: Re: Fw: Asking For Partner's Benefit >In a message dated 11/16/1999 3:12:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, >Dburn@btinternet.com writes: > ><< > A wise man once wrote that the true intent of a law lies not in the > > words themselves, but in the mind of the person who wrote the words. > > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > I think that must have been Ernie Wise. > > David Burn > London, England >> > > >Or John Wiser? > +=+ Or, given the content of his letters to me, more probably Kaplan the Wise. [ Those who suggest that the intention of the law should be subject to third party interpretation could be sure the legislators would change the law quickly if it were interpreted not as they intended, and they would hedge every law around with more stringent detail than now. ] ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 02:41:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:41:15 +1100 (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 CAA16307 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:41:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06872 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:40:57 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:40:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Nov 16, 99 01:00:39 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: > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson > > wrote: > > >> I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their > >>partner how to bid or defend. > > >Of course they know - at least in places like Denmark where the > >authorities have been telling them that for years. But that is > >not what this discussion is about. > > Oh, yes it is. Some people are saying that there is an acceptable > interpretation that they should be allowed to help partner in his play > or defence by asking questions designed with the sole purpose of giving > him that help. Nope. That's how you see it. But you've made it clear in the past that you have an extremist point of view - almost paranoid I'd say - about questions. > As for referring to Norman Kay as a novice, I am surprised at you, > Jesper. And I'm surprised at your cheap shot here. Well not really, you've clearly lost any objectivity on the subject. Do you believe that Kaplan was attempting to direct Kay's bidding or defence. If you do, you really ought not to hide behind innuendo. If you don't, why bring it up? Kaplan was faced with a stupid situation. Inadequate disclosure of an obscure area of system - and he knew it. He had other options than asking questions of course. But frankly a procedure that guarantees a committee hearing when the information matters (or worse - might have mattered) which can be avoided by the asking of a question strikes me as deranged. In a sense it's moot now - at least at the top level. With screens in place in almost all major expert games, the situation won't arise. You simply have no idea what explanation your partner is getting. And maybe the laws in this area should assume screens - or at least assume screens in resolving the tricky points. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 02:47:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:47:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f27.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA16336 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:47:16 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 88518 invoked by uid 0); 16 Nov 1999 15:46:29 -0000 Message-ID: <19991116154629.88517.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:46:28 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:46:28 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >Is it not required that I call the TD forthwith? Answer is no, >because L9A says "may call an attention to an irregularity," not >must. > >The question then is: Should an ethical player call the TD, or not, >when >s/he hirself has not been misled by the MI? > >Assuming the answer is no, and the subsequent auction and/or play >make it >obvious that one's side has been damaged by the MI, the TD >should provide >redress. However, the TD may not agree on the issue of >damage, and there >you are. Had you called the TD earlier, the MI >would have been corrected >and the damage averted. It seems to me that >good ethics do not require >that a player let opponents get away with >a damaging infraction. > >An example from actual play: > >My RHO opened a weak notrump, I doubled, and next hand passed. The >pass >was Alerted and then explained, "The pass forces me to >redouble." My >inexperienced partner, thinking RHO must have a good >hand (and that there >are 50 HCP in the pack), got them off the hook >by bidding. The explanation >should have been, "That's a conventional >forcing pass, not indicating a >willingness to play one notrump >doubled, and requiring that I redouble. >Partner could have any of a >number of possible hands, usually weak, but >possibly strong. Would >you like to know more?" > How about "Artificial, forcing. Either running from 1NTx with a one-suited hand or wanting to play 1NTxx." (assuming that is their agreement - I'm using Guoba rescues here, as it's the one I know that has p->xx). Half as long, all information required (I don't consider it required for me to work out the percentages for my opponents), and doesn't tell partner what I am going to bid (except by inference), so we don't have the "asking for aces, to which I will reply..." problem. Even an inexperienced partner should be able to handle the terms "artificial" and "forcing". I agree that "forces xx" is incomplete, but that (at least here) the TD is right - it is so common as to be expected, by regular tournament players. So common, in fact, that I am often asked (assaulted is often the correct term) "isn't that pass Alertable?" (1NT(11+-14)-x-p) "No." "But doesn't it force a redouble?" "No." "What does it mean, then?" "In my partner's inestimable opinion, 1NTx is the best place for us to play this hand." (not trying very hard to keep my "sickly sweet" voice out. Yes, I know it isn't very nice. Neither is the 1NTx-1 or -2 against all the 3NT= their way). >After the deal was completed, the TD ruled no MI, saying this was >a common >understanding, and I'm afraid I blew my stack. > And, I hope, accepted your PP in good faith. >Now, what can I do to prevent this sort of crap? 1. Pre-alert opponents: "We're forced to play in Flight A because of me. My partner, while a strong rubber bridge player, is unused to tournament systems. Please be extra careful to completely explain your calls." - Then you can drop the Alert Procedure reg. about "experienced players" in the TD's lap, with prior evidence on your side. 2. "Partner, meta-rule #1: Confusing bids are forcing. Meta-rule #2: When forced to trust either the opponents' bidding or mine, trust mine. I'm on your side, they aren't. If I lied, it will be all my fault, and I will apologize." 3. Keep calling the TD in cases of obvious incomplete explanation. Keep lobbying your Unit and District, and the ACBL for that matter, explaining that while standards have improved significantly, full disclosure has not yet been attained at the table. In other words, you're an experienced player. You must protect yourself against incomplete information (according to that same Alert Procedure reg.), and you can do it in many ways before the situation comes up at the table where you are not allowed to ask. >Doesn't it make sense that it would be ethically okay to call the TD >at >the time of the MI and get the explanation corrected? > Only if you are absolutely certain that there was a breach of the disclosure laws. Otherwise, you are in danger of harassment. :-) Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 03:48:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 03:01:33 +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 DAA16428 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 03:01:17 +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 LAA00835 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:01:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA04705 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:01:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:01:08 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911161601.LAA04705@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > The thread covered quite a lot of ground but here is a brief summary as I > saw it. Mostly good summary but needs minor corrections. > A "continuum" of "asking for partner's benefit" was identified ranging > From: Asking questions to draw attention to a particular feature of ones > own hand - Unanimously considered to be illegal. The "telling question." > Via: Asking a question to wake partner up to something about opponents > hands he has obviously missed - Mostly considered illegal under L73B1 but > a minority felt it was legal (most (all?) of that minority felt it would > be illegal under the WBFLC interpretation of L73B1). The "pro question." It doesn't require that partner _already_ have missed anything. The only requirement is that the asker doesn't need to know for his own reasons but asks for partner's benefit. > To: Asking a question when partner is a novice and you know oppos have > given MI. This is the "Kaplan question," but it does not require that partner be a novice. The key distinguishing feature is that the opponents have already given MI. In the "pro question," there is no MI, just a thought that partner might not know enough to ask. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 04:43:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 04:43:47 +1100 (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 EAA16710 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 04:43:39 +1100 (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 ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:41:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38302829.41F1A63A@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:33:14 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Herman De Wael writes: >My point is that, by the footnote, the TD will have to rule >as if the intention of the bidder IS the agreement. So >unless they can prove otherwise, this is what should have >been told to the opponents, and if it wsn't, then that is >MI. I have a problem with the scenario where one player mistakenly makes a bid, intending it to mean A, when the partnership has not agreed that meaning, and B is asked what the bid means. If their agreement is B, or they haven't discussed it, but have a general rule that it would be B in this situation, and it is explained as B, then opps have been given a correct explanation. It is NOT MI, no matter what the TD rules. >Please understand me very well, I am not saying that this IS >their agreement, I am saying that the TD will rule as if it >is. So he will. I understand. However, having grown up under a rule of law that one is innocent until proven guilty, I find putting the burden of proof on the accused completely unpalatable, even in this context. But if I have to live with it, then - what constitutes proof? Is an entry on the CC sufficient? Can I refer to this bridge book or that (for example, Truscott's _The Bidding Dictionary_ for SA)? Must I carry around (not to mention compiling) several hundred pages of system notes? Do my system notes need to cover every possible bidding sequence? If I need all these pages of notes, the game of bridge approaches a chore rather than a pleasure - and that's not a good thing, IMO. 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/AwUBODGXwL2UW3au93vOEQLJKACcCZNY2+qzgYBG6e1l0BcVvNz9mPEAoIEK 3mN0sigsF6GIH+QoinlWzsDT =2jiT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 06:42:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 06:42:22 +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 GAA16968 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 06:42:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15681; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:41:03 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <38302829.41F1A63A@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:38:40 -0500 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:33 PM -0500 11/16/99, Ed Reppert wrote: >I have a problem with the scenario where one player mistakenly makes a bid, >intending it to mean A, when the partnership has not agreed that meaning, >and B is asked what the bid means. If their agreement is B, or they haven't >discussed it, but have a general rule that it would be B in this situation, >and it is explained as B, then opps have been given a correct explanation. >It is NOT MI, no matter what the TD rules. >So he will. I understand. However, having grown up under a rule of law that >one is innocent until proven guilty, I find putting the burden of proof on >the accused completely unpalatable, even in this context. Innocent until proven guilty applies only in criminal cases; the burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence. A score adjustment is the bridge analogy of a civil case; a procedural penalty is the bridge analogy of a criminal case. Thus, if you cannot tell whether there was a misbid or misexplanation, and there is no evidence other than the statement of an interested party that it was a misbid, you should adjust as if it was a misexplanation. (If you do have other evidence, such as a convention card or system notes, you can take that into account.) However, if you are considering imposing a penalty for failure to correct the misexplanation, you do need a stronger standard. Likewise in UI cases. If a hesitation is disputed and you believe it was likely, you should adjust if the hesitator's partner took an action which could have been suggested by the hesitation. But you should not impose a procedural penalty unless you are convinced that the hesitation occurred, possibly because the bid would have made no sense without the hesitation (Hesitation Blackwood, for example). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 07:01:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:01:12 +1100 (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 HAA17041 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:01:02 +1100 (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 JAA08956; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:00:19 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991117090045.0094ce50@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:00:45 +1300 To: "John Probst" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Re: Random minors In-Reply-To: References: <000501bf2fbf$7d143ac0$4f5108c3@swhki5i6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >"Partner uses an algorithm which I do not know which is not based on >minor suit holding to determine which to open with a perceived frequency >of 55% shorter and 45% longer" > >Legal IMO chs john How about "If partner is deciding which of equal length minors to open then he takes the product modulo 13 of the leftmost three cards in his hand which are not kings. If the result is 5 or less he opens his longer minor, if 6 or more his shorter" (NB: 5/12 = 41.7%). Of course you need a partner who: a) Doesn't sort his cards (to avoid bias.) b) Can multiply. (A simpler rule: "If the first card partner picked up was a 2,3,4,5, or 6 and ..." but I like the flashier one above.) By the way, I've been quite authoritatively stamped on in the past concerning the coin-flip method, on the grounds that this would constitute a mechanical aid to memory or technique, and as such is strictly verboten. M --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 07:03:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:03:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17055 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:03:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-75.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.75]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA12107; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:02:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007401bf306d$d9dd7100$4b84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:04:52 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 2:56 AM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > >From: John (MadDog) Probst > >> Marvin L. French wrote: Supposing partner was green and came from Mars where they >> play Martian 1NT of 20-22. Partner would never have heard of the >> agreement and would be confused. (As was your pard) The TD failed you >> I'm afraid. >> >> However your partner did stop playing bridge, so I'd have considered >> "result stands", because they could have pursued the matter themselves. > >Craig will no doubt make some remark about my two-headed partner. Not at all. The Martian analogy is most apt, though, since much of the discussion centers around whether questions are acceptable to educate a rather green partner. I am certain Jesper did not include Norman Kay in that group. I hope not. Kay (with Kaplan and Silidor) literally wrote the book that got me hooked on duplicate bridge. No novice he. For years he has given the lie to the canard that good bridge players can't be found in Pennsylvania. -- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 09:41:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:41:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17403 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:41:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:41:32 -0800 Message-ID: <010a01bf3081$6c1cbb80$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <007401bf306d$d9dd7100$4b84d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:23:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > The Martian analogy is most apt, though, since much of the > discussion centers around whether questions are acceptable to educate a > rather green partner. > I am certain Jesper did not include Norman Kay in that group. I hope not. > Kay (with Kaplan and Silodor) literally wrote the book that got me hooked on > duplicate bridge. No novice he. For years he has given the lie to the canard > that good bridge players can't be found in Pennsylvania. > I believe the book you refer to is *The Complete Book of Duplicate Bridge,* by Norman Kay, Sidney Silodor, and Fred Karpin (not Kaplan). The date was 1965, two years after Silodor's death. Looking inside the cover, you see that the copyright notice lists the authors as Norman Kay, Estate of Sidney Silodor, and Fred Karpin. What happened, Oswald Jacoby says in a foreward, is that Kay and Silodor started working on the book about 1961, when they were arguably the top American pair. The work was interrupted by Silodor's illness and untimely death (of brain cancer, as I remember, at about age 57). Kay asked Karpin to help him finish the book and become a third author, with the responsibility of seeing that the book would be interesting to both beginners and experts. Kaplan did write a book on duplicate: *Duplicate Bridge: How to Play, How to Win.* Don't know the date. Silodor wrote some books on his own, including *Silodor Says* in 1952, which I no longer have but remember as being pretty good. Before picking Kay as his regular partner during the last few years of his life, Silodor had many famous partners, including Helen Sobel, with whom he won the National Mixed Pairs two years in a row. He was a regular on the top team (IMO) of the decade with other regulars Crawford, Schencken, Rapee, B. J. Becker, plus non-regulars Tobias Stone, Kay, and Stayman. This powerhouse won the Vanderbilt Knockout Teams 4 out of 5 years in the late 50s. Back to the thread: As Steve Willner points out, there is the "pro question" and the "Kaplan question," the first asked for partner's benefit when there is no MI, the second asked for the benefit of a partner in the presence of known MI. I don't see that it matters whether the Kaplan question is asked opposite a skilled or unskilled partner, since it aims to educate partner in either case. John Probst has convinced me that it doesn't matter whether MI is present or not. Partner education must take place away from the table or between deals. During a deal, partners must shift for themselves. I still intend to call the TD after a deal if damage due to MI is likely, and maybe when there is no damage (depending on the opponents' reaction when I politely try to educate them). Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 10:44:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:44:59 +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 KAA17524 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:44:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA26938 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:44:42 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <011201bf3085$aebf00c0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <38302829.41F1A63A@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop. cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:38:36 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:55 PM -0800 11/16/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >David Grabiner wrote: >> Likewise in UI cases. If a hesitation is disputed and you believe it was >> likely, you should adjust if the hesitator's partner took an action which >> could have been suggested by the hesitation. But you should not impose a >> procedural penalty unless you are convinced that the hesitation occurred, >> possibly because the bid would have made no sense without the hesitation >> (Hesitation Blackwood, for example). >All well reasoned, but the last example is flawed. I agree that it is flawed; I intended to write, "you are convinced that the hesitation occurred and that the player should have known he was taking an action forbidden by the UI rules. > I don't think anyone >wants to issue a PP for misuse of UI under the usual circumstances. ("Yes, >partner hesitated, but I thought my bid was justified"). However, when the player should have known better, the PP should be imposed. That's why I used hesitation Blackwood as an example. >Well, there are some who want to impose a PP when such an infraction causes >no damage, hence no score adjustment, but that is illogical. I agree with that point. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 11:23:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:23:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f64.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA17612 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:23:08 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 6583 invoked by uid 0); 17 Nov 1999 00:22:27 -0000 Message-ID: <19991117002227.6582.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:22:27 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:22:27 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Canberra Bridge Club" Sean Mullanphy >This is a game where as far as applying the law is concerned you cannot >treat novices and experienced >players differently. On a purely practical level, who is to determine when >a player is inexperienced >(and therefore allowed to be coached by h.* experienced partner's >questions) and more importantly >how do you tell these players that suddenly they are >no longer novices and that the questions that partner >has asked , for their benefit are now illegal? It is >far better for a novice to understand that one set >of rules applies to ALL players. I hate to sound negative, but... Oh really? What about the various NCBO's definition of Logical Alternative (which all, to my knowledge and faulty memory, refer in some way to "the player's peers") (L16, L73F1)? The footnote to L69, 70, 71? The strength of Procedural Penalties depending on the amount of "you should know better"? And the following quotes (I'm sure that there are similar regulations in other NCBOs, but I don't have immediate access to them/understanding of language right now): ACBL Alert Procedure: "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." EBU Orange Book: "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." (my emphasis) In other words, there are many cases where the experience of the player is involved, and where the laws are different for the master and the novice. And this is as it should be, and that it should be a continuum (or even a pie-plate) is also as it should be, IMHO. Having said that, I have been avoiding this sub-thread, because I don't want to get into the morass. My opinion is that I have a "this is the way it is" ruling; I'm'a gonna yous'it. I also don't think general bridge experience has anything to do with it (except in frequency of potential occurrance). I believe the question is really personified as follows: I helped design the system for Arun and Berit. I know that they play an unusual system in situation X. When situation X comes up, it is Alerted and the explanation is incomplete, in such a way that no-one who didn't spend much time on their system would know (I.e. David, my partner, but not me). Note that this applies whether David is DWS (the prototypical novice ;-) or David Ellerington (who, AFAIK, doesn't even play bridge - i.e. a real novice). Also note that similar questions can be posed where my partner is an experienced rubber bridge player (very good card-player, but complex conventions are kind of hard to deal with in cut-for-partners, so she never learned them) or even an experienced ghoulie player (where the conventions, as they are, are *very* different from real bridge of any sort). Yes, it is most likely to occur with an experienced tournament player partnering an inexperienced one, but not necessarily. Am I allowed to ask about this hole in the explanation? No, because I do not need the answer, and I'm asking simply for my partner's benefit. Am I attempting to maneuver the bidding or play of my partner? No - I don't know enough about my partner's hand (or mine, for purposes of the example) to know whether knowledge of the hole is relevant (oh, and if it can be shown that I am asking because of my hand, I expect a PP, and possibly even L&E). I am simply making sure that everyone at the table knows A&B's system, as it *may* be relevant. Is it illegal? Yes. Should this be illegal? I don't know. My guess is that the lesser evil is to make it illegal, not because it is in and of itself bad for the game, but because it's not good enough for the game to force TD's, AC's and all to make "why did he ask" judgement calls. M. David Farebrother. P.S. All of my recent posts aside, I do not believe that, currently, TDs have the right to say "That [incomplete explanation] is so common that you weren't damaged" unless they can show (preponderance of evidence) that the player in fact had the experience to know better. I know that that sentiment was not made clear in my response to Marvin's post - all of what I said I believe in, but that doesn't stop the fact that I believe (given the facts as Marvin presented them) that the ruling was horrible. But given the state of TDship around here (50+% excellent, 30% adequate, ~20% "less than adequate") any legal chance to CYA should be taken. P.P.S. Yes, I'd go by my middle name more often if it had a better chance of a) being pronounced properly (i.e. with 2 syllables) or b) being closer to unique. My children will be given at least one common name and one uncommon name. mdf ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 11:51:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:51:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f95.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA17670 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:51:15 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 36680 invoked by uid 0); 17 Nov 1999 00:50:37 -0000 Message-ID: <19991117005037.36679.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:50:37 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 00:50:37 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies to all, especially DWS, for the tone of this post. It is entirely my fault that I am unable to explain this in terms other than grammar-school pedagogic, while still having any reasonable certainty of my point getting across. Maybe that's why I've avoided getting into this topic. And yes, David, I know you "Americanize" your public postings. >From: David Stevenson >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson > > wrote: > >>> I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their >>>partner how to bid or defend. > >>Of course they know - at least in places like Denmark where the >>authorities have been telling them that for years. But that is >>not what this discussion is about. > > Oh, yes it is. Some people are saying that there is an acceptable >interpretation that they should be allowed to help partner in his >play or >defence by asking questions designed with the sole purpose of >giving him >that help. > You are obviously of the opinion that all "clearing up MI because partner is the only one at the table that is misinformed" is "help[ing] partner in his play or defence." They are not of that opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. Especially as the fact is that the proportion of your opinions that are obviously barmy approaches zero. You are not entitled to force your opinion on "Them", and then argue that they're wrong because it violates your opinion. You must argue for your opinion. If your reaction is "Well, it's bleedin' obvious, innit?" then I don't know what to suggest :-). > I believe that to be cheating. > This result follows automatically, given your opinion (well, and given that they should know better). I doubt if anyone would argue against this. > I am surprised that certain people on this list do not consider it >cheating. > I don't know that I do, really. I am certain that, given the Lille interpretation, actually doing it at the table is cheating. That much is obvious. But I am not convinced that the Lille interpretation is the only one that would allow a fair game of bridge. Neither are They (in fact, from their posts, it seems like they are quite sure that "the Lille interpretation is not..."). As I said in another post (It's the previous one I've written. Whether or not it is previous to anyone else is anyone's guess) I believe that the Lille interpretation is the lesser of evils. That is not the same thing. > As for referring to Norman Kay as a novice, I am surprised at you, >Jesper. > I'm glad that was intended to be humourous. Otherwise it would be rhetorical fallacy of the highest order (see my other post, again, for details). Having said all this, I decline to argue my position here. I have enough troubles with my own battles over "what should be, as opposed to what is" to get involved in one which has rubbed all participants' tempers raw. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 12:41:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:41:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f63.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA17763 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:41:48 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 34184 invoked by uid 0); 17 Nov 1999 01:41:10 -0000 Message-ID: <19991117014110.34183.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 216.209.96.162 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:41:10 PST X-Originating-IP: [216.209.96.162] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 01:41:10 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Michael Farebrother" >Having said all this, I decline to argue my position here. >I have enough troubles with my own battles over "what should >be, as opposed to what is" to get involved in one which has >rubbed all participants' tempers raw. Apologies for following up my own post. I did not mean that I was throwing my fish into the fight, and then running away. I, as always, stand behind my words, and am willing to eat the flames that result. I meant only that I will not defend my opinions *on the "is the 'Kaplan question' inherently unfair?" question. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 13:22:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:22:26 +1100 (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 NAA17833 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:22:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from p1fs09a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.105.32] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nX6L-0003G3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:08:05 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:23:44 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf30a2$c5bd0e80$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 Auction N E S W 1nt -X-XX*-P 2C-P-2D- P P-3C-P - ? Is West allowed to ask whether 2C by North should have been alerted? West is suspicious that 2C should have been alerted and thinks that 3C is to play. However if 2C is natural and 3C is for the majors, then asking will elucidate that East did not know and may, given the option by the TD, chose to change his bid. Is West asking to inform partner? Anne -----Original Message----- From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 1:17 AM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >Apologies to all, especially DWS, for the tone of this post. It is entirely >my fault that I am unable to explain this in terms other than grammar-school >pedagogic, while still having any reasonable certainty of my point getting >across. Maybe that's why I've avoided getting into this topic. And yes, >David, I know you "Americanize" your public postings. > >>From: David Stevenson >>Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson >> > wrote: >> >>>> I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their >>>>partner how to bid or defend. >> >>>Of course they know - at least in places like Denmark where the >>>authorities have been telling them that for years. But that is >>>not what this discussion is about. >> >> Oh, yes it is. Some people are saying that there is an acceptable >>interpretation that they should be allowed to help partner in his >play or >>defence by asking questions designed with the sole purpose of >giving him >>that help. >> >You are obviously of the opinion that > >all >"clearing up MI because partner is the only one at the table that is >misinformed" >is >"help[ing] partner in his play or defence." > >They are not of that opinion. > >You are entitled to your opinion. Especially as the fact is that the >proportion of your opinions that are obviously barmy approaches zero. > >You are not entitled to force your opinion on "Them", and then argue that >they're wrong because it violates your opinion. You must argue for your >opinion. If your reaction is "Well, it's bleedin' obvious, innit?" then I >don't know what to suggest :-). > >> I believe that to be cheating. >> >This result follows automatically, given your opinion (well, and given that >they should know better). I doubt if anyone would argue against this. > >> I am surprised that certain people on this list do not consider it >>cheating. >> >I don't know that I do, really. I am certain that, given the Lille >interpretation, actually doing it at the table is cheating. That much is >obvious. But I am not convinced that the Lille interpretation is the only >one that would allow a fair game of bridge. Neither are They (in fact, from >their posts, it seems like they are quite sure that "the Lille >interpretation is not..."). > >As I said in another post (It's the previous one I've written. Whether or >not it is previous to anyone else is anyone's guess) I believe that the >Lille interpretation is the lesser of evils. >That is not the same thing. > >> As for referring to Norman Kay as a novice, I am surprised at you, >>Jesper. >> >I'm glad that was intended to be humourous. Otherwise it would be >rhetorical fallacy of the highest order (see my other post, again, for >details). > >Having said all this, I decline to argue my position here. I have enough >troubles with my own battles over "what should be, as opposed to what is" to >get involved in one which has rubbed all participants' tempers raw. > >Michael. > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 14:14:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA17951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:14:49 +1100 (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 OAA17941 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:14:39 +1100 (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 11nvY5-000OSB-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 03:14:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:53:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Protect yourself References: <4gyO$RAZ4hK4EwcT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <008901bf2c7d$6ee1f720$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <004c01bf2fd4$86881260$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004c01bf2fd4$86881260$622ed2cc@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: >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> > >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> >> The EBU regulation is carefully worded. Unlike the equivalent ACBL >> >> regulation, which suggests you should be asking. >> > >> >Not exactly, David, if we have the same regulation in mind. >> > >> >The ACBL Alert Procedure says, "Players who, by experience or expertise, >> >recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special >agreement >> >will be expected to protect themselves." Note that it does not say >"protect >> >the partnership," and that inexperienced players are not held to this >> >standard. >> > >> >Penalty doubles of overcalls after a one-level natural suit opening are >so >> >rare in ACBL-land that I don't think any expert would normally be denied >> >redress if an unAlerted penalty double caused damage. If you read the >> >regulation carefully, an experienced or expert player must have >*recognized* >> >the failure to Alert if redress is to be denied. >> >> While I often disagree with you, Marv, it is very rare because you >> seem to have lost the logical thread, so I respectfully suggest you go >> back and read what you are replying to: I believe you misread it. > >I don't give a r---'s a-- (a---) what the thread is about. I'm concerned >about the knock against the ACBL's (fictional) regulation. >> >> Ian has pointed out that someone might have problems asking a question >> and not ask as a result: that is not a decision an inexperienced player >> will think of! I merely suggest that not asking for that reason gives >> you better protection under the EBU reg than under the ACBL reg. >> >And I merely suggest that there is no ACBL reg that suggests what you claim. >If there is, please quote it. > >It would better for all of us to quote regulations or Laws rather than to >dredge up what we remember from our potentially biased memory banks. It was quoted. I merely failed to re-quote it. Here it is: Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. Now this reg does not give a player a defence of saying that he was unable to clarify the situation because of other factors - though the word "may" does mean that it could be interpreted that way. The equivalent EBU reg does give such a defence: 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. The difference is the reference "without putting your side's interests at risk": if you can convince an EBU TD/AC that to ask would have put your side's interests at risk then you are entitled to redress: the ACBL reg does not say so. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 14:14:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA17949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:14:46 +1100 (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 OAA17940 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:14:35 +1100 (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 11nvY5-0008VD-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 03:14:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:00:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <000301bf3047$9e3751a0$f4ab93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000301bf3047$9e3751a0$f4ab93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > [ Those who suggest that the intention of the >law should be subject to third party interpretation >could be sure the legislators would change the law >quickly if it were interpreted not as they intended, >and they would hedge every law around with more >stringent detail than now. ] The evidence over the years does not necessarily agree with you. Of course, some people will have childish reactions this way, but I am surprised you would suggest that an international committee of lawmakers should respond like this. At the moment we have a situation where many good and clear Laws have been promulgated, and some less clear ones. Also there are ones where the ambiguity therein may be deliberate rather than unintentional. We are in a world changing from where the deep understanding of a Law book around the world takes decades [and thus is always behind] to where international promulgation is getting faster. The presumptions that [a] only one particular group of law-makers are suitable to interpret the Laws and they happen to be the same group that has the skills to write them in the first place and [b] that particular group will have so little respect for all the other suitable people around the world that they would take their ball back if anyone disagreed is just not believable. I believe the current setup to be flawed. Hopefully it will improve, but it is very far from perfect. Having a separate body to interpret and explain the Laws would be a good first step. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 17 15:58:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA18160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:58:31 +1100 (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 PAA18155 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:58:23 +1100 (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 11nxAb-000EG1-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 04:58:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 04:57:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Random minors In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991117090045.0094ce50@chance.otago.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19991117090045.0094ce50@chance.otago.ac.nz>, Michael Albert writes >> >>"Partner uses an algorithm which I do not know which is not based on >>minor suit holding to determine which to open with a perceived frequency >>of 55% shorter and 45% longer" >> >>Legal IMO chs john > >How about "If partner is deciding which of equal length minors to open then >he takes the product modulo 13 of the leftmost three cards in his hand >which are not kings. If the result is 5 or less he opens his longer minor, >if 6 or more his shorter" (NB: 5/12 = 41.7%). Of course you need a partner >who: > >a) Doesn't sort his cards (to avoid bias.) >b) Can multiply. > >(A simpler rule: "If the first card partner picked up was a 2,3,4,5, or 6 >and ..." but I like the flashier one above.) > FWIW Proddy and I both have rules about which card to play from restricted choice QJ holdings, which neither of us have worked out in 15 years. Of course we refuse to reveal to each other what it is, as then we'd have to change it. Mine comes out about 52/48 one way or the other (I conveniently forget which:)) ) 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 16:03:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:03:51 +1100 (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 QAA18182 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:03:43 +1100 (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 11nxFn-000Ea9-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:03:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:02:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <19991117005037.36679.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <19991117005037.36679.qmail@hotmail.com>, Michael Farebrother writes >Apologies to all, especially DWS, for the tone of this post. It is entirely >my fault that I am unable to explain this in terms other than grammar-school >pedagogic, while still having any reasonable certainty of my point getting >across. Maybe that's why I've avoided getting into this topic. And yes, >David, I know you "Americanize" your public postings. > Americanise! what happened to the U in ColoUr, the PH in sulfa, and the S in colonise? 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 16:10:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:10:38 +1100 (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 QAA18205 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:10:30 +1100 (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 11nxMK-000F3a-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:10:21 +0000 Message-ID: <5J0XgmBchjM4Ewus@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:08:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca>, Ron Johnson writes >David Stevenson writes: >> >> Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson >> > wrote: >> >> >> I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their >> >>partner how to bid or defend. >> >> >Of course they know - at least in places like Denmark where the >> >authorities have been telling them that for years. But that is >> >not what this discussion is about. >> >> Oh, yes it is. Some people are saying that there is an acceptable >> interpretation that they should be allowed to help partner in his play >> or defence by asking questions designed with the sole purpose of giving >> him that help. > >Nope. That's how you see it. > >But you've made it clear in the past that you have an extremist >point of view - almost paranoid I'd say - about questions. > >> As for referring to Norman Kay as a novice, I am surprised at you, >> Jesper. > >And I'm surprised at your cheap shot here. Well not really, you've >clearly lost any objectivity on the subject. > >Do you believe that Kaplan was attempting to direct Kay's bidding >or defence. If you do, you really ought not to hide behind >innuendo. If you don't, why bring it up? > >Kaplan was faced with a stupid situation. Inadequate disclosure >of an obscure area of system - and he knew it. > >He had other options than asking questions of course. But frankly >a procedure that guarantees a committee hearing when the >information matters (or worse - might have mattered) which can >be avoided by the asking of a question strikes me as deranged. I just cannot agree. I shout, scream, rant and rave at Stevenson frequently (When he stops opening 2D on a random 5-card suit with 6 boards to play and when we're winning I might say otherwise) but ... when I know that partner may play better if I *ask* a leading question of the opponents, I *know* that *I'm* a cheat. Go play with the traffic, it's about what you're suggesting. 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 16:15:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:15:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18226 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:15:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:15:27 -0800 Message-ID: <013101bf30ba$a960b1c0$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Michael Farebrother" , References: <19991117002227.6582.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:14:10 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > EBU Orange Book: "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." (my > emphasis) > So that's what the Orange Book says. No doubt published on BLML before, but my first time seeing it. This seems like a good regulation, provided it is recognized that asking for partner's benefit puts my "side's interest at risk." "Were you aware of the bid's likely meaning?" "Yes, I was." "Did you have an opportunity to ask about the meaning?" "Yes, I did." "Why didn't you ask at that time?" "Because I was pretty sure my partner would benefit from the question and explanation, and that would constitute an illegal communication with partner. Being illegal, it would put my side's interest at risk." "Very well, score adjusted for both sides." In my dreams. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 18:30:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:30:41 +1100 (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 SAA18375 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:30:33 +1100 (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 HAA07500 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:29:53 GMT Message-ID: <38325973.12CE613@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:29:55 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: claim revisited Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How would you appreciate rationality in this one? Dealer:East, EW vulnerable, matchpoints 107 J84 - 1S - 2C A94 - 2S - 3D AKJ107 - 3S - 4S AQ6 9 - - - Q1075 962 Q105 KJ8732 Q42 963 KJ85432 AK3 6 85 H7 lead, 4,2,A C5, 4,A,3 S10, 9,2,A C2, K,6,8 CJ, 9,S8,CQ SK,6 At this point, declarer claims 12 tricks: "all mine". JP Rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 19:45:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:45:30 +1100 (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 TAA18518 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:45:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.69] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11o0iF-0007iy-00; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:45:11 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01bf30d8$07cce180$455108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" , "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:43:32 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: Ed Reppert ; Bridge Laws Date: 16 November 1999 20:07 Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin >At 12:33 PM -0500 11/16/99, Ed Reppert wrote: > >>So he will. I understand. However, having grown up under a rule of law that >>one is innocent until proven guilty, I find putting the burden of proof on >>the accused completely unpalatable, even in this context. > +=+ It is not uncommon in these pages to read comparisons with life outside the game and recourse to aspects of justice/fairness which are external to the game. Bridge is played within its own code of Rules - Laws and Regulations - and the judgement to be made is one of conformance or otherwise with those rules. What conforms is just, fair, by definition - the players sit down to play of their own free will under the governance of those Rules - and what does not conform is subject to rectification and, as the rules may provide, redress. What is unpalatable in other activities is not a material consideration once the rules are set. It can be a factor in setting the rules but other criteria may intervene to outweigh it. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 20:16:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:16:35 +1100 (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 UAA18578 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:16:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.175] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11o1CM-00094q-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:16:19 +0000 Message-ID: <002a01bf30dc$60f6f940$455108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Was Asking for Partner's benefit: now discussion of procedure. Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:15:18 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 November 1999 04:03 Subject: Re: Fw: Asking For Partner's Benefit >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > The presumptions that [a] only one particular group of law-makers are >suitable to interpret the Laws and they happen to be the same group that >has the skills to write them in the first place and [b] that particular >group will have so little respect for all the other suitable people >around the world that they would take their ball back if anyone >disagreed is just not believable. > > I believe the current setup to be flawed. Hopefully it will improve, >but it is very far from perfect. Having a separate body to interpret >and explain the Laws would be a good first step. > +=+ One misapprehension concerns the role of the WBFLC. This is set up to establish the rules by which the game is to be played. This means to determine not merely the wording of the laws - that comes second to making the decisions as to what the effect of those laws is to be (always subject to the approval of the WBF Executive). For this reason any deviation from the intention has to be corrected. As they are, the committee's procedures for this are ponderous and too slow for the modern world; however, under discussion in Bermuda will be two proposals: 1. A 'rolling' review of the laws, constantly in progress, with more frequent adjustments of them. This is a Blaiss/Endicott joint suggestion. It offers the thought of a one or two (or none) of the laws updated in alternate years, with discussion in the year between. 2. A streamlined procedure for issuing agreed interpretations of the law with binding authority. One aim could be to reduce the length of time taken to make decisions where it is felt that incorrect opinions are circulating. I note that Kojak wishes to pursue this, and I support his opinion that a better and swifter procedure is needed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 21:15:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:15:05 +1100 (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 VAA18689 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:14:57 +1100 (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 KAA17656 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:14:48 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA23529 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:14:47 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:14:45 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 KAA12003 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:14:43 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA06691 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:14:43 GMT Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:14:43 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199911171014.KAA06691@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: claim revisited X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > How would you appreciate rationality in this one? > > Dealer:East, EW vulnerable, matchpoints > > 107 > J84 - 1S - 2C > A94 - 2S - 3D > AKJ107 - 3S - 4S > AQ6 9 - - - > Q1075 962 > Q105 KJ8732 > Q42 963 > KJ85432 > AK3 > 6 > 85 > > H7 lead, 4,2,A > C5, 4,A,3 > S10, 9,2,A > C2, K,6,8 > CJ, 9,S8,CQ > SK,6 > > At this point, declarer claims 12 tricks: "all mine". I judge declarer's claim on the basis that he thought SK would draw the remaining trump(s) and that DA is an entry to the established clubs. Declarer will make 11 tricks if he plays another trump or if he plays diamond to the ace and throws a heart on a club. I rule that the alternative line of playing hearts is not normal play and adjudicate the result as 11 tricks. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 21:40:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:40:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA18735 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:40:38 +1100 (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 VAA01692 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:40:31 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:40:04 +1100 Message-ID: <01BF3144.4F169380.mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au> From: Mark Abraham To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Random minors Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:40:02 +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 Wednesday, November 17, 1999 7:01 AM, Michael Albert [SMTP:malbert@maths.otago.ac.nz] wrote: > > > >"Partner uses an algorithm which I do not know which is not based on > >minor suit holding to determine which to open with a perceived frequency > >of 55% shorter and 45% longer" > > > >Legal IMO chs john > > How about "If partner is deciding which of equal length minors to open then > he takes the product modulo 13 of the leftmost three cards in his hand > which are not kings. If the result is 5 or less he opens his longer minor, > if 6 or more his shorter" (NB: 5/12 = 41.7%). Of course you need a partner > who: > > a) Doesn't sort his cards (to avoid bias.) And ensures that the previous contestant to hold this hand shuffled it reliably... :-) Or shuffles it himself. Mark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 21:47:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:47:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc2.pa.home.com (ha1.rdc2.pa.home.com [24.12.106.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA18766 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:47:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com ([24.1.53.108]) by mail.rdc2.pa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991117104655.GALM15136.mail.rdc2.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:46:55 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 05:46:56 -0500 Message-ID: <1X8yODQrdxgdNU8vSQzWocFpSW=4@4ax.com> References: <000f01bf30d8$07cce180$455108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <000f01bf30d8$07cce180$455108c3@swhki5i6> 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 Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:43:32 -0000, Grattan wrote: >> >+=+ It is not uncommon in these pages to read >comparisons with life outside the game and >recourse to aspects of justice/fairness which >are external to the game. Bridge is played within >its own code of Rules - Laws and Regulations - >and the judgement to be made is one of >conformance or otherwise with those rules. What >conforms is just, fair, by definition - the players sit >down to play of their own free will under the >governance of those Rules - and what does not >conform is subject to rectification and, as the >rules may provide, redress. What is unpalatable >in other activities is not a material consideration >once the rules are set. It can be a factor in >setting the rules but other criteria may intervene >to outweigh it. ~ G ~ +=+ > > This may seem a trivial point to some, or an argument of the "glass half full or half empty" type, but it seems to me that to take the fact that a player sits down at the table as their implicitly accepting that all the rules are "fair and just" is a little excessive. It's entirely possible that a player believes one or more of the rules objectionable, or even unfair, (and has a right to express that opinion!) but that their desire to play bridge overrides those objections. What is the alternative - to say that if you disagree with any of the Rules, you must give up playing bridge, at least under any WBF-related authority, unless and until that rule is changed? Not a desirable solution from anyone's point of view, I would have thought. Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 17 22:54:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:54:52 +1100 (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 WAA18892 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:54:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:54:18 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA01427 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:44:46 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: claim revisited Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:43:52 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: >How would you appreciate rationality in this one? > >Dealer:East, EW vulnerable, matchpoints > > 107 > J84 - 1S - 2C > A94 - 2S - 3D > AKJ107 - 3S - 4S > AQ6 9 - - - > Q1075 962 > Q105 KJ8732 > Q42 963 > KJ85432 > AK3 > 6 > 85 > >H7 lead, 4,2,A >C5, 4,A,3 >S10, 9,2,A >C2, K,6,8 >CJ, 9,S8,CQ >SK,6 > >At this point, declarer claims 12 tricks: "all mine". I would give only the SQ to the defenders, the trick that cannot be lost. I can't believe that South didn't know that SQ was still with the defenders. When the S10 was taken with the ace, South assumed that East had the queen. Now that the spade six drops under the king, he "knows" that the queen will fall in East and thus can claim all tricks. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 00:04:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:04:26 +1100 (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 AAA19031 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:04:05 +1100 (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 OAA24055 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:03:39 +0100 Message-ID: <3832A7C7.D09215C6@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:04:07 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: claim revisited References: <38325973.12CE613@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > How would you appreciate rationality in this one? > > Dealer:East, EW vulnerable, matchpoints > > 107 > J84 - 1S - 2C > A94 - 2S - 3D > AKJ107 - 3S - 4S > AQ6 9 - - - > Q1075 962 > Q105 KJ8732 > Q42 963 > KJ85432 > AK3 > 6 > 85 > > H7 lead, 4,2,A > C5, 4,A,3 > S10, 9,2,A > C2, K,6,8 > CJ, 9,S8,CQ > SK,6 > > At this point, declarer claims 12 tricks: "all mine". > I'd rule 4S, +1. Declarer is definitely convinced that his trumps are good. The defense will get the Q of spades, that's obvious. However, I cannot imagine any rational line of play where the WE pair would get also the heart trick. Declarer will either continue trumps and will discover his mistake at once or will cross to dummy with the A of D, pitch a heart on club. West will ruff this trick (or not, it changes nothing), declarer will say "Oh, s**t" but sill will take 11 tricks. The only line leading to 10 tricks will be to cross to dummy with the A of D at some point to a) run the J of hearts b) play a heart to the K c) ruff a diamond d) lead a diamond a pitch a heart All of them are clearly irrational, not to say insane. Yes, declarer forgot about the Q of trumps. No, the defense won't get the heart trick. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Thu Nov 18 00:23:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:23:07 +1100 (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 AAA19081 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:22:57 +1100 (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 IAA16476 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:23:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991117082354.0068c9d4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:23:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:49 AM 11/14/99 +0000, michael wrote: >Game All Dealer East > >West North East South > 1S 2H >Pass Pass* Pass > > >North thought for some time before passing (North and East screenmates) > >When dummy appeared East called TD "to reserve rights" - she said at >this stage that she had been put off protecting by North's thinking > >North held > >x >xx >A9xxxx >87xx > >2H-3 > >TD recalled at end of hand - North explained that he had a transfer >mechanism available to play in 3D - but decided his hand was unsuitable >holding two hearts and single spade > >How do you rule? Your choice is to either let the score stand citing L73D1 or adjust citing L73F2. N has cited a "bridge reason for the action", so the question hinges on whether you believe that reason to be "demonstrable" (as Michael's subject line suggests). Well, if you believe him then he has "demonstrated" that he had a "bridge reason"; if you believe he is bridge-lawyering after the fact then he has not. That's a call that has to be made by someone who was there and talked to him. 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 Nov 18 00:44:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:44:07 +1100 (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 AAA19141 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:43:59 +1100 (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 IAA18099 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:44:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991117084500.006a1eb4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:45:00 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin In-Reply-To: <382BF750.5E75868@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:17 PM 11/12/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> Had N explained the position as ambiguous, >> informing his opponents that the partnership had agreed to play good/bad in >> some situations but had not agreed as to whether it applied here, he would >> have bid 3NT, and W would have had all available information about the N-S >> agreements, but wouldn't have had any more clue than N had as to what S had >> actually held, and would have known it, and (I'd like to think) would >> either have led HA and beaten it or would have led the H8 and wouldn't >> have, and none of the TD, the SD nor the AC would have had need to get >> involved. > >Yes they would have. > >If North explains "I don't know, I'm going to take it as >18-19, but it might also be good/bad", and then bids 3NT, >and W leads the same, W would _still_ be entitled to a score >correction. > >W does not need to protect himself against uncertain >explanations. >W has the right to be informed that 2NT was intended as >"good/bad". >W is allowed to act on the basis of "strong", if the >explanation is "probably strong, could also be weak". >N is not allowed to explain "either weak, or strong" and get >away with it, even if he is telling the truth. >The TD and AC should still, in the absence of proof to the >contrary, rule as if 2NT had the agreement corresponding to >the hand, and in that case N's explanation would still be >MI. My last paragraph (cited above) was not intended to contribute further to the theoretical dispute. What I meant to suggest was that, based on my experience in the circles I play in, had N fully clarified the position he was in, W would have been satisfied that N had revealed everything he knew in a genuine attempt to be helpful, and so would not have called the TD. Perhaps he still would have been theoretically entitled to, and perhaps he would have, and perhaps the AC would have awarded him an adjustment, but, if so, he would have wound up wearing the dreaded "bridge lawyer" tag in front of his peers. Hair-splitting on BLML notwithstanding, in real life, laws and interpretations that result in fewer director calls and fewer AC sessions are to be preferred. The drawback to Herman's position, in real life, is that well-meaning opponents in "full disclosure" situations want, expect, and are generally satisfied with exactly that -- full disclosure -- and expect redress when their opponents conceal facts of which they are aware, whatever the finely-tuned legalities might dictate. 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 Nov 18 00:58:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:58:10 +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 AAA19181 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:57:59 +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 11o5al-000DQd-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:57:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 03:38:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: >David Stevenson writes: >> >> Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson >> > wrote: >> >> >> I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their >> >>partner how to bid or defend. >> >> >Of course they know - at least in places like Denmark where the >> >authorities have been telling them that for years. But that is >> >not what this discussion is about. >> >> Oh, yes it is. Some people are saying that there is an acceptable >> interpretation that they should be allowed to help partner in his play >> or defence by asking questions designed with the sole purpose of giving >> him that help. > >Nope. That's how you see it. > >But you've made it clear in the past that you have an extremist >point of view - almost paranoid I'd say - about questions. Indeed. Perhaps you would explain this. >> As for referring to Norman Kay as a novice, I am surprised at you, >> Jesper. > >And I'm surprised at your cheap shot here. Well not really, you've >clearly lost any objectivity on the subject. > >Do you believe that Kaplan was attempting to direct Kay's bidding >or defence. If you do, you really ought not to hide behind >innuendo. If you don't, why bring it up? Jesper stated that this was because of partner being a novice. You may assume what you like if you are not going to read earlier articles. I believe that Kaplan made a mistake in his ethical understanding of a situation. Of course he was trying to direct his partner's bidding: he was assuming that his partner would bid wrong if he did not communicate with him. >Kaplan was faced with a stupid situation. Inadequate disclosure >of an obscure area of system - and he knew it. > >He had other options than asking questions of course. But frankly >a procedure that guarantees a committee hearing when the >information matters (or worse - might have mattered) which can >be avoided by the asking of a question strikes me as deranged. So now you want to let players take the Law into their own hands, make their own decisions, and ignore the Laws, solely to avoid committee hearings? That is deranged. >In a sense it's moot now - at least at the top level. With >screens in place in almost all major expert games, the situation >won't arise. You simply have no idea what explanation your >partner is getting. > >And maybe the laws in this area should assume screens - or at >least assume screens in resolving the tricky points. Perhaps you should take the trouble to read David Burn's articles then, where he points out the effects on this problem of assuming screens. Or are you accusing him of paranoia 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 Nov 18 00:58:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:58:09 +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 AAA19182 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:57:59 +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 11o5al-000DQe-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:57:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 03:49:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> <38302829.41F1A63A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >So he will. I understand. However, having grown up under a rule of law that >one is innocent until proven guilty, I find putting the burden of proof on >the accused completely unpalatable, even in this context. Surely you have grown up under a rule of law where one is innocent until proven guilty when accused of a felony or the like by the authorities? But surely, in civil cases, where there is a court acting as an arbiter between two parties, proof is not required? When there is a C&E hearing you have the equivalent of a criminal court. When a TD or AC gives a ruling you have the equivalent of a civil case because they are acting as arbiter between two sides. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 18 01:46:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:46:48 +1100 (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 BAA19320 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:46:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11917 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:46:28 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199911171446.JAA11917@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:46:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <5J0XgmBchjM4Ewus@probst.demon.co.uk> from "John" at Nov 17, 99 05:08:44 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 John writes: > > In article <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca>, Ron Johnson > writes > >David Stevenson writes: > >> > >> Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson > >> > wrote: > >> > >> >> I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their > >> >>partner how to bid or defend. > >> > >> >Of course they know - at least in places like Denmark where the > >> >authorities have been telling them that for years. But that is > >> >not what this discussion is about. > >> > >> Oh, yes it is. Some people are saying that there is an acceptable > >> interpretation that they should be allowed to help partner in his play > >> or defence by asking questions designed with the sole purpose of giving > >> him that help. > > > >Nope. That's how you see it. > > > >But you've made it clear in the past that you have an extremist > >point of view - almost paranoid I'd say - about questions. > > > >> As for referring to Norman Kay as a novice, I am surprised at you, > >> Jesper. > > > >And I'm surprised at your cheap shot here. Well not really, you've > >clearly lost any objectivity on the subject. > > > >Do you believe that Kaplan was attempting to direct Kay's bidding > >or defence. If you do, you really ought not to hide behind > >innuendo. If you don't, why bring it up? > > > >Kaplan was faced with a stupid situation. Inadequate disclosure > >of an obscure area of system - and he knew it. > > > >He had other options than asking questions of course. But frankly > >a procedure that guarantees a committee hearing when the > >information matters (or worse - might have mattered) which can > >be avoided by the asking of a question strikes me as deranged. > > I just cannot agree. I shout, scream, rant and rave at Stevenson > frequently (When he stops opening 2D on a random 5-card suit with 6 > boards to play and when we're winning I might say otherwise) but ... > when I know that partner may play better if I *ask* a leading question > of the opponents, I *know* that *I'm* a cheat. I repeat. Deranged. Especially when you *know* that you don't rate to always be protected by the director or AC. (see Marvin's post on rgb) You're creating a situation where it's advantageous to be sparse - albeit technically accurate - with explanations. It is of course unlawful currently to ask for partner's benefit. And even if one accepts Kaplan's position in the editorial you can't be blind to the possibility that the question in itself can transmit unauthorized information. Is there any reason why this *couldn't* be the way to handle questions? I mean if there's a complaint, you're going to have to investigate in any case. I happen to think that it's moronic to create a situation where a player knows there's misinformation and can't clear it up with a question. *Especially* in club games - when he knows rulings are apt to be random. As it happens, in most club games I've played in the question for partner's sake is perfectly safe. No director there would even investigate the issue. I don't do it because I don't break the laws even when I feel they're wrong. But it bugs the hell out of me to hear explanations that I know to be incomplete or inadequate - especially now as I play regularly with an inexperienced player. I accept that the ruling about not asking was made in good faith to attempt to solve the problem of what Steve W. is calling the Pro Question. I just think the solution is a lazy one. That asking questions to clear up MI *ought* to allowed. > Go play with the traffic, it's about what you're suggesting. What on earth prompts that last line? Why the absurd hostility? -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 01:51:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:51:03 +1100 (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 BAA19342 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:50:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb1s12a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.172.178] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11o6Pe-0006jt-00; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 06:50:22 -0800 Message-ID: <001e01bf310a$eae56780$b2ac93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:46:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 November 1999 05:21 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >Americanise! > +=+ As with the majority of -ize/-ise words, English English dictionaries give precedence to the -ize spelling. But spellcheckers in PCs of Irish provenance do not. There is fun to be had with spellcheckers; try 'worldwide' it will offer you 'world-wide', so change it and rerun the spellchecker which will now offer 'worldwide'. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 01:51:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:51:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19343 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:50:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb1s12a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.172.178] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11o6Pf-0006jt-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 06:50:23 -0800 Message-ID: <001f01bf310a$eb966800$b2ac93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:47:57 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 November 1999 11:07 Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin >On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:43:32 -0000, Grattan wrote: > > >>> >>+=+ It is not uncommon in these pages to read >>comparisons with life outside the game and >>recourse to aspects of justice/fairness which >>are external to the game. Bridge is played within >>its own code of Rules - Laws and Regulations - >>and the judgement to be made is one of >>conformance or otherwise with those rules. What >>conforms is just, fair, by definition - the players sit >>down to play of their own free will under the >>governance of those Rules - and what does not >>conform is subject to rectification and, as the >>rules may provide, redress. What is unpalatable >>in other activities is not a material consideration >>once the rules are set. It can be a factor in >>setting the rules but other criteria may intervene >>to outweigh it. ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> > >This may seem a trivial point to some, or an argument of the >"glass half full or half empty" type, but it seems to me >that to take the fact that a player sits down at the table >as their implicitly accepting that all the rules are "fair >and just" is a little excessive. It's entirely possible that >a player believes one or more of the rules objectionable, or >even unfair, (and has a right to express that opinion!) but >that their desire to play bridge overrides those objections. > +=+ This does not exactly fit what I was intending to say. It *is* the case that when we sit down to play we agree to play by the rules as they are - i.e. according to their authorized meaning. I did not wish to say that the player would think them fair etc., but only that the opinion is not relevant to the application of the rules as provided in the Conditions of Contest. As they say, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, since for the purposes of the competition their effects are by definition 'fair' (and so 'not material' - sic - ). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 01:59:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA19383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:59:30 +1100 (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 BAA19378 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:59:21 +1100 (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 JAA25598 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:59:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991117100023.0068fd18@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:00:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:32 PM 11/15/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: >My RHO opened a weak notrump, I doubled, and next hand passed. The pass was >Alerted and then explained, "The pass forces me to redouble." My >inexperienced partner, thinking RHO must have a good hand (and that there >are 50 HCP in the pack), got them off the hook by bidding. The explanation >should have been, "That's a conventional forcing pass, not indicating a >willingness to play one notrump doubled, and requiring that I redouble. >Partner could have any of a number of possible hands, usually weak, but >possibly strong. Would you like to know more?" > >After the deal was completed, the TD ruled no MI, saying this was a common >understanding, and I'm afraid I blew my stack. > >Now, what can I do to prevent this sort of crap? Doesn't it make sense that >it would be ethically okay to call the TD at the time of the MI and get the >explanation corrected? I see this anecdote as strong support for David S.'s position, that it is wrong to interpret the laws as permitting a player to do anything to "help" their partner to get "full information" in potential MI situations. I agree with the TD here. LHO offered a correct explanation of the partnership agreement. That a novice at the table could think of only one possible reason as to why the partnership would have such an agreement, namely that the passer wanted to play the hand in 1NTXX, was because they were a novice, not because they had been in any way misinformed about their opponents' agreement. The "explanation" that Marv would have preferred sounds to me like an explanantion of the partnership agreement with a bridge lesson thrown in for good measure. I don't find it appropriate for the novice's more experienced partner to attempt to extract such a bridge lesson from their opponent, for their partner's benefit, whether by asking directly for further clarification or doing do indirectly by calling the TD. Even those who support the position that the "Kaplan question" is (or should be) legal seem, for the most part, to agree that the blatant "pro question" should be illegal. Marv's anecdote demonstrates the difficulty of drawing the line between them, which, IMO, supports those who, with David, think that we should allow neither. 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 Nov 18 02:29:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:29:41 +1100 (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 CAA19654 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:29:32 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22563 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:29:20 +0100 Received: from ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.44), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda22559; Wed Nov 17 16:29:13 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:29:08 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <000301bf3047$9e3751a0$f4ab93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000301bf3047$9e3751a0$f4ab93c3@pacific> 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 CAA19656 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:29:48 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > [ Those who suggest that the intention of the >law should be subject to third party interpretation >could be sure the legislators would change the law >quickly if it were interpreted not as they intended, >and they would hedge every law around with more >stringent detail than now. ] ~ G ~ +=+ That is indeed correct, provided we are talking only about the (fairly few, I hope) matters on which the legislators have a strong opinion which they presented so unclearly in the laws that the third party have interpreted it differently. And that is exactly why I would like it. It would force the legislators to actually present their meaning in the law book itself so that it can be understood by people who read that book. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 02:29:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:29:44 +1100 (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 CAA19655 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:29:32 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22564 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:29:20 +0100 Received: from ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.44), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb22559; Wed Nov 17 16:29:14 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Was Asking for Partner's benefit: now discussion of procedure. Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:29:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <002a01bf30dc$60f6f940$455108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <002a01bf30dc$60f6f940$455108c3@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 CAA19660 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:15:18 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ One misapprehension concerns the role of the >WBFLC. This is set up to establish the rules by >which the game is to be played. This means to >determine not merely the wording of the laws - >that comes second to making the decisions as to >what the effect of those laws is to be (always >subject to the approval of the WBF Executive). For >this reason any deviation from the intention has to >be corrected. As they are, the committee's >procedures for this are ponderous and too slow >for the modern world; however, under discussion >in Bermuda will be two proposals: > 1. A 'rolling' review of the laws, constantly >in progress, with more frequent adjustments >of them. This is a Blaiss/Endicott joint >suggestion. It offers the thought of a one or >two (or none) of the laws updated in alternate >years, with discussion in the year between. > 2. A streamlined procedure for issuing >agreed interpretations of the law with binding >authority. One aim could be to reduce the >length of time taken to make decisions where >it is felt that incorrect opinions are circulating. >I note that Kojak wishes to pursue this, and I >support his opinion that a better and swifter >procedure is needed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am glad to hear that he procedure is under consideration. I think (1) is a very good idea, and that (2) should be kept to a minimum. I think that real laws changes are the only way to get rid of discussions about exactly how binding an "interpretation of the law with binding authority" is. No matter how binding they are supposed to be, the Lille interpretations are also supposed to be "interpretations". When one of them seems to be in direct conflict with the words of the laws, then it is not an interpretation - it is either a law change or something to be ignored because it is in conflict with the laws. In other words, if the statements issued by the WBFLC between major rewrites of the book are to be binding even if they are in conflict with the book, then they _are_ law changes, and should be called that. Adding explanatory footnotes to the laws (like the only in L75D) could be a good way to give binding interpretation guidance in cases where no change to the main text is needed. There are of course practical problems in translating, printing, and distributing law changes. But there are exactly the same problems with authoritative interpretations. If the WBFLC seriously means that WBFLC statements should reach and be followed by every TD, then it can stress that point by calling them law changes. If they are not called law changes, I do not believe that they have any chance of being distributed nearly as widely as the law book is. The current procedure for making WBFLC interpretations seems to have the following combination of properties: (a) it takes a long time from the perception of a problem until it can be resolved by a WBFLC statement, and (b) nevertheless, the resulting WBFLC statement sometimes give the impression of having been hastily worded at a meeting. I would prefer to have (b) solved, even at the expense of living with (a). My suggestion would be: * Make real laws changes. Major changes should preferably still be done only at fairly rare re-issues of the whole book, but minor ones can be done faster. * If possible, reduce the time from the perception of a problem until a suggestion to repair it is made. * When a suggestion is made, spend the necessary time to have it reviewed, modified, and reviewed again as many times as needed, so that any unfortunate side effects or inconsistencies have a good chance of being discovered in time. In the review process, you might consider taking advantage of BLML's considerable ability to read the laws in ways the authors had not imagined possible. I don't think we can get completely rid of (2) - but I think that it would be better if WBFLC interpretations were officially binding only for the WBF itself (probably including the zones) and considered an option for NCBOs/SOs. Those opinions of the WBFLC that are not optional should then be law changes. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 02:47:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:47:41 +1100 (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 CAA19724 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:47:33 +1100 (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 KAA00991 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:47:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991117104837.0070e38c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:48:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: claim revisited In-Reply-To: <38325973.12CE613@meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:29 AM 11/17/99 +0100, Jean wrote: >How would you appreciate rationality in this one? > >Dealer:East, EW vulnerable, matchpoints > > 107 > J84 - 1S - 2C > A94 - 2S - 3D > AKJ107 - 3S - 4S > AQ6 9 - - - > Q1075 962 > Q105 KJ8732 > Q42 963 > KJ85432 > AK3 > 6 > 85 > >H7 lead, 4,2,A >C5, 4,A,3 >S10, 9,2,A >C2, K,6,8 >CJ, 9,S8,CQ >SK,6 > >At this point, declarer claims 12 tricks: "all mine". The only issue with respect to "rationality" here is whether, when E fails to follow to the SK, S will be allowed to "realize" that the SQ is still outstanding. But it is clear that S's intention is to discard the H3 on a good club, so it doesn't matter. Whether he plays for W to have the SQ or plays for there to be only 12 spades in the deck, he will still come to exactly 11 tricks. WTP? FWIW, if it did matter, I would allow him to "wake up" to the fact that W holds the SQ when E discards. 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 Nov 18 03:03:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:03:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f114.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA19776 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:03:41 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 79582 invoked by uid 0); 17 Nov 1999 16:03:01 -0000 Message-ID: <19991117160301.79581.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:03:01 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:03:01 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Bridge content? No bridge content here...] >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >In article <19991117005037.36679.qmail@hotmail.com>, Michael Farebrother > writes >>And yes, David, I know you "Americanize" your public postings. > >Americanise! > Oops - you are right. >what happened to the U in ColoUr, Still there - I think I had a "humourous" in that post somewhere... >the PH in sulfa, Never needed it/them. But it's still in phenolphthalein... >and the S in colonise? > went the same way as the C in defence and the last I in aluminium. Oh well. And you know what I meant had nothing to do with the spelling differences. Whimper.. Micheal (well, that's the way it seems to be spelt over here, anyway). ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 03:09:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:09:54 +1100 (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 DAA19835 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:09:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17588 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:09:12 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199911171609.LAA17588@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:09:11 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Nov 17, 99 03:38:08 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: > > Ron Johnson wrote: > >David Stevenson writes: > >> > >> Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson > >> > wrote: > >> > >> >> I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their > >> >>partner how to bid or defend. > >> > >> >Of course they know - at least in places like Denmark where the > >> >authorities have been telling them that for years. But that is > >> >not what this discussion is about. > >> > >> Oh, yes it is. Some people are saying that there is an acceptable > >> interpretation that they should be allowed to help partner in his play > >> or defence by asking questions designed with the sole purpose of giving > >> him that help. > > > >Nope. That's how you see it. > > > >But you've made it clear in the past that you have an extremist > >point of view - almost paranoid I'd say - about questions. > > Indeed. Perhaps you would explain this. The unusually agressive tone of your posts both here and on RGB. I've got the impression from some of your posts that you see questioning as evil. Truly. Now it may be that I'm reading too much into someone who's just answered the same question once too often. But here you are starting with the assumption of bad motives on the part of people on the list. > >> As for referring to Norman Kay as a novice, I am surprised at you, > >> Jesper. > > > >And I'm surprised at your cheap shot here. Well not really, you've > >clearly lost any objectivity on the subject. > > > >Do you believe that Kaplan was attempting to direct Kay's bidding > >or defence. If you do, you really ought not to hide behind > >innuendo. If you don't, why bring it up? > > Jesper stated that this was because of partner being a novice. You > may assume what you like if you are not going to read earlier articles. Jesper didn't bring up Norman Kay. You did. You're being disingenuos here. Yes Norman Kay was specificly mentioned in Kaplan's article. If Jesper made any reference to it, I missed it. > > I believe that Kaplan made a mistake in his ethical understanding of a > situation. I doubt it. He specificly says in the editorial that he wrote the relevent section. He may be presumed to know what his intent was. > Of course he was trying to direct his partner's bidding: he > was assuming that his partner would bid wrong if he did not communicate > with him. Of course he wasn't. He had no idea what Kay would do with the information. Direct has a meaning. That Kaplan had a plan that he wished Kay to carry out. Do you agree that Kay was entitled to a full explanation of the opposition sequence and that incomplete information might lead to damage to Kaplan's side? I know you do with both propositions. According to the Lille interpretation he has no choice but to accept the misinformation, the potential for damage and the potential for an unfavorable ruling. As he mentions in the editorial it's quite plausable that a committee would look on a failure to act as a double shot. (Either a successful result or a successful protest is the wording I believe.) Some people have very strong feelings on what they perceive as double shots. > > >Kaplan was faced with a stupid situation. Inadequate disclosure > >of an obscure area of system - and he knew it. > > > >He had other options than asking questions of course. But frankly > >a procedure that guarantees a committee hearing when the > >information matters (or worse - might have mattered) which can > >be avoided by the asking of a question strikes me as deranged. > > So now you want to let players take the Law into their own hands, make > their own decisions, and ignore the Laws, solely to avoid committee > hearings? That is deranged. No, in fact I don't. Like it or not, the Lille interpretation is the law now. But Kaplan was *not* breaking the Laws at the time. And while the Lille interpretation *is* currently binding, it's hardly a given that it needs to be this way. Is there any reason that the current regulation could not be re-written to permit the asking of questions to clear up misinformation? As with any questions the possibility of a ruling of UI simply by asking the question would still be there. That's your real objection isn't it? That the probability is there that asking the question in and of itself transmits information beyond the answers given. You've mentioned several times on RGB that you believe that there's a relationship between a player's hand and the probability that he will ask questions. As the laws are currently interpreted you need to investigate the situation. If you find unauthorized information was passed and acted upon you know as well as anyone how to deal with it. > >In a sense it's moot now - at least at the top level. With > >screens in place in almost all major expert games, the situation > >won't arise. You simply have no idea what explanation your > >partner is getting. > > > >And maybe the laws in this area should assume screens - or at > >least assume screens in resolving the tricky points. > > Perhaps you should take the trouble to read David Burn's articles > then, where he points out the effects on this problem of assuming > screens. Or are you accusing him of paranoia too? Articles? I was only aware of one. If he's written more on the subject, I'd be glad to read more. Are they collected at your site? You'll note the maybe though. I'm aware that you can create a whole suite of problems in attempting to solve a particular issue. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 03:35:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:35:47 +1100 (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 DAA19983 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:35:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18721 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:35:14 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199911171635.LAA18721@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:34:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <19991117005037.36679.qmail@hotmail.com> from "Michael Farebrother" at Nov 17, 99 00:50:37 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 Michael Farebrother writes: Much good stuff which frankly articulates my position better than I did. Please allow me to express regret for the tone of my posts in this thread. It did nothing to advance the issue. In particular I regret the choice of the word paranoid used to David Stevenson. And deranged (though I called the procedure not any person. Still it wasn't neccessary.) To be clear, I have the highest respect for the people fundamentally opposed to *any* form of questioning. Surprised by their passion on the issue. Most deleted. > As I said in another post (It's the previous one I've written. Whether or > not it is previous to anyone else is anyone's guess) I believe that the > Lille interpretation is the lesser of evils. > That is not the same thing. I haven't seen anything that would make me agree with this. Obviously I haven't run into the particular situations that have influenced so many people. And maybe I'm underestimating how difficult sorting out the UI side of it could be. Eric made a really good point about the trouble in deciding where to draw the line. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 03:37:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:37:09 +1100 (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 DAA19997 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:37:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:36:35 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA03241 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:34:09 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: Withdrawal of concession Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:33:14 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Consider the following endgame: S: KQ H: - D: - C: 7 S: 6 S: - H: J10 H: 75 D: - D: - C: - C: 4 S: - H: 62 D: - C: 2 South is declarer in a spade contract. West is on lead and plays the HJ. South now says: "One trick for you." Everybody agrees. While writing down the score South wakes up and calls the TD, saying that he simply has the rest. Now what? Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 03:40:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:40:52 +1100 (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 DAA20040 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:40:43 +1100 (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 QAA09379 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:40:05 GMT Message-ID: <3832DA68.6B6142A6@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:40:08 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: claim revisited References: <3.0.1.32.19991117104837.0070e38c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau a écrit : > > At 08:29 AM 11/17/99 +0100, Jean wrote: > > >How would you appreciate rationality in this one? > > > >Dealer:East, EW vulnerable, matchpoints > > > > 107 > > J84 - 1S - 2C > > A94 - 2S - 3D > > AKJ107 - 3S - 4S > > AQ6 9 - - - > > Q1075 962 > > Q105 KJ8732 > > Q42 963 > > KJ85432 > > AK3 > > 6 > > 85 > > > >H7 lead, 4,2,A > >C5, 4,A,3 > >S10, 9,2,A > >C2, K,6,8 > >CJ, 9,S8,CQ > >SK,6 > > > >At this point, declarer claims 12 tricks: "all mine". > > The only issue with respect to "rationality" here is whether, when E fails > to follow to the SK, S will be allowed to "realize" that the SQ is still > outstanding. But it is clear that S's intention is to discard the H3 on a > good club, so it doesn't matter. Whether he plays for W to have the SQ or > plays for there to be only 12 spades in the deck, he will still come to > exactly 11 tricks. WTP? > > FWIW, if it did matter, I would allow him to "wake up" to the fact that W > holds the SQ when E discards. The reference to rationality was this: If South is pretty certain East will produce SQ under the K, so far as to claim beforehand, would he only have looked at East's (dis)card had not play ceased? If South thinks he holds 7 cashing tricks after SK, might he not cash them in any possible order? for example: HK, SJ (Oops!). JP Rocafort > > 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 -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 04:15:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:15:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (law2-oe13.hotmail.com [216.32.180.117]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA20191 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:15:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 20974 invoked by uid 65534); 17 Nov 1999 17:15:07 -0000 Message-ID: <19991117171507.20973.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.166.124] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.19991117104837.0070e38c@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: claim revisited Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:14:38 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 9:48 AM Subject: Re: claim revisited > At 08:29 AM 11/17/99 +0100, Jean wrote: > > >How would you appreciate rationality in this one? > > > >Dealer:East, EW vulnerable, matchpoints > > > > 107 > > J84 - 1S - 2C > > A94 - 2S - 3D > > AKJ107 - 3S - 4S > > AQ6 9 - - - > > Q1075 962 > > Q105 KJ8732 > > Q42 963 > > KJ85432 > > AK3 > > 6 > > 85 > > > >H7 lead, 4,2,A > >C5, 4,A,3 > >S10, 9,2,A > >C2, K,6,8 > >CJ, 9,S8,CQ > >SK,6 > > > >At this point, declarer claims 12 tricks: "all mine". > > The only issue with respect to "rationality" here is whether, when E fails > to follow to the SK, S will be allowed to "realize" that the SQ is still > outstanding. But it is clear that S's intention is to discard the H3 on a > good club, so it doesn't matter. Whether he plays for W to have the SQ or > plays for there to be only 12 spades in the deck, he will still come to > exactly 11 tricks. WTP? > > FWIW, if it did matter, I would allow him to "wake up" to the fact that W > holds the SQ when E discards. For a claimer that fails to mention the relevance of the trump Q to the opponents, once a doubtful point is raised, the appropriate standard is that he discovers the relevance at the time it is 'played' for the greatest advantage to the opponents. I am sure that a statement such as '12 tricks if the Q falls' would go a long way to illuminating matters. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > 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 Nov 18 04:22:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:22:31 +1100 (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 EAA20205 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:22:23 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA14379 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:21:45 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:21 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991117100023.0068fd18@pop.cais.com> Eric Landau wrote: > LHO offered a correct explanation of the > partnership agreement. "Pass forces me to redouble" is a *correct* explanation of all of the following possible agreements. Pass = <5 points and a 6 card suit - I must redouble. Pass = >10 points and a desire to penalise you - I must redouble. Pass = either of the above - I must redouble. Personally I would not regard it as an *adequate* explanation of any of the above agreements, nor do I regard "even a novice should know enough to ask further questions/be aware of the most common meaning" as suitable protection for the NOS. I'd hate to think that a director should both bar the sorting-out MI TD call and fail to adjust subsequently. (A sorting out MI question doesn't come up here since it is not the "more experienced player's" turn to ask). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 04:58:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:58:42 +1100 (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 EAA20322 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:58:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-253.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.253]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA02160; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:58:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006901bf3125$9ef0dec0$fd84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Martin Sinot" , "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Withdrawal of concession Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:00:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Cancel the concession under 71C. It would be irrational to play in such manner as to manage to lose a trick. Caution South to be more careful in the future. (Of course I expect the lead the 9 from j9x crowd to disagree). -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Martin Sinot To: Bridge Laws (E-mail) Date: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 11:51 AM Subject: Withdrawal of concession >Consider the following endgame: > > S: KQ > H: - > D: - > C: 7 >S: 6 S: - >H: J10 H: 75 >D: - D: - >C: - C: 4 > S: - > H: 62 > D: - > C: 2 > > >South is declarer in a spade contract. West is >on lead and plays the HJ. South now says: "One trick >for you." Everybody agrees. While writing down the score >South wakes up and calls the TD, saying that he simply >has the rest. Now what? > >Martin Sinot >martin@spase.nl > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 05:08:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:48:08 +1100 (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 CAA19733 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:47:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22597 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:47:50 +0100 Received: from ip72.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.72), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda22595; Wed Nov 17 16:47:46 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:47:46 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <88oyOJ=jQj98hWJswGnBpLc29f1+@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> 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 CAA19734 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 03:38:08 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Ron Johnson wrote: >>David Stevenson writes: >>> >>> Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>> >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson >>> > wrote: >>> >>> As for referring to Norman Kay as a novice, I am surprised at you, >>> Jesper. >> >>And I'm surprised at your cheap shot here. Well not really, you've >>clearly lost any objectivity on the subject. >> >>Do you believe that Kaplan was attempting to direct Kay's bidding >>or defence. If you do, you really ought not to hide behind >>innuendo. If you don't, why bring it up? > > Jesper stated that this was because of partner being a novice. I did not. I have not at any time stated anything at all about the Kaplan incident. I find that incident - and Kaplan's long-ago opinion - completely uninteresting. I have only discussed the current situation. I have said that I think it might be a good idea to allow people to ask for partner's benefit under certain circumstances, because that could be beneficial in a situation where a player at the table is a novice. That is not the same as saying that the partner of everybody who ever asked for partner's benefit is a novice. >You may assume what you like if you are not going to read earlier articles. Exactly. You may like to read my articles again. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 05:10:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:10:00 +1100 (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 FAA20344 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:09:49 +1100 (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 NAA03972 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:05:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jrickard@localhost) by pluto.math.uga.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA21589 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:54:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:54:20 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199911171754.MAA21589@pluto.math.uga.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: fQOnZswDi3ROYN+wOyL40w== Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > >Americanise! > > > +=+ As with the majority of -ize/-ise words, English English > dictionaries give precedence to the -ize spelling. Well, the OED does. Some other English English dictionaries don't. But, yes, it's a myth that "-ize" is a new-fangled Americanism. The "-ise" form is relatively recent in Britain. I stubbornly and old-fogeyishly stick to the etymologically correct "-ize", and regarded the tabloidization of the Times as complete when they switched to using "-ise". For show-offs, the use of "-ize" has the added benefit that it allows you to flaunt your knowledge of the exceptions where the "-ise" is derived from French rather than Greek. Jeremy. (English) --- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 05:26:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:26:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f94.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA20386 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:26:29 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 83332 invoked by uid 0); 17 Nov 1999 18:25:50 -0000 Message-ID: <19991117182550.83331.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:25:47 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:25:47 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Eric Landau >At 05:32 PM 11/15/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: [Marvin's story - 1NT(weak)-X-P!("forces XX")] >I see this anecdote as strong support for David S.'s position, >that it is wrong to interpret the laws as permitting a player >to do anything to "help" their partner to get "full information" in >potential MI situations. >I agree with the TD here. LHO offered a correct explanation of the >partnership agreement. But not a complete one. It ranks up there with 1D(precision) - "could be short". The reasons why it could be short are relevant, certain other inferences from the system are relevant, and even an experienced player who has had the misfortune of never playing against a strong club system before will not be able to work it out. "Could be as short as 2 with 4 clubs and a 4-card major, may have up to 5 clubs, often longer clubs than diamonds, 11-15" is complete, and reasonably succinct. Now, in the ACBL, one is expected by regulation to be familiar with "strong or weak no trumps with or without 5-card majors. The forcing opening will most often be either a natural, strong 2-bid or an artificial forcing opening of 1C or 2C". So perhaps "could be short" is technically legal. But I don't like it. I accept "could be as short as 2", but then again, I play Precision, so I understand the inferences. >That a novice at the table could think of only one >possible reason as to why the partnership would have such an agreement, >namely that the passer wanted to play the hand in 1NTXX, was because they >were a novice, not because they had been in any way misinformed about their >opponents' agreement. Oh really? Ian and I are playing our TD-call club against you. The auction goes 1C! (13+, SAF)-2C!(also 13+); 2D!(please describe your hand). You truly think that that is "complete explanation" and that any non-novice will be able to work out all the inferences available to us from the auction? [1] We're GF (ok, that one should be obvious). Opener either has a very strong hand, a hand that wants to be declarer for some reason, or a very difficult hand type to describe in our methods (probably a three-suiter or a freak two-suiter). Well, or maybe he just feels like it (it's not called the "whiny relay" for nothing). I stand by my description in my response to Marvin's post "Artificial, forcing, has either a one-suited bailout or wants to play 1NTxx." as a *minimum* complete explanation. I also stand by my dislike of the "forces XX" from the "explaining Blackwood" point of view. Other (less-constructed) examples: 2NT Lebensohl - is "forces 3C" full and complete explanation? [2] How about 2C after an EHAA 10-12 NT? "asking me about my major suit lengths." [3] How about 2NT after an EHAA 10-12 NT? "bid your better minor, pd" [4][5] I will admit that not waiting for her second chance to bid (i.e. working out that if opener has to redouble, she'll get a second chance to bid) is noviceish, but I don't think that she needs to understand the various rescue systems over weak NT doubled (or even that they exist or why they exist, despite the ACBL Alert procedure reg. quoted above), never mind work them out from first principles, to get protection. >The "explanation" that Marv would have preferred >sounds to me like an explanantion of the partnership agreement >with a bridge lesson thrown in for good measure. I do agree with that. But that doesn't excuse the pair from having to explain what the bid *shows*, not just what's going to happen. And the bid shows (assuming Guoba rescues here, the pair at the table could be playing a different system) One of: A hand wanting to play 1NTxx. A one-suited hand, that wishes to escape from 1NT. (actually, now that I think about it, I believe that in Guoba rescues, an immediate XX shows the one-suited rescue, and pass is the way to show a two-suited rescue with non-touching suits. Change all my quotes to be the actual agreement. Can you tell I refuse to play a rescue system that regularly gives the opponents two shots at deciding what to do (except when I want them to pull)? :-) >Even those who support the position that the "Kaplan question" is (or >should be) legal seem, for the most part, to agree that the blatant >"pro >question" should be illegal. Marv's anecdote demonstrates the >difficulty >of drawing the line between them, which, IMO, supports >those who, with >David, think that we should allow neither. > I agree, as I've said before (lesser of evils quote). Especially as I obviously disagree with you on this specific ruling. Michael [1] In this system (which is primarily designed to be as wonky as possible while still being GCC-legal, rather than "good"), we play transfer rebids by opener after 1C (13+, any except certain balanced hands)- 2C(13+, "partner, we may have a game!") - except for 2D, the "whiny relay" - "Partner, I don't wanna describe my hand. You describe your hand." - which also asks for transfer rebids. [2] As opposed to "Artificial, forces 3C, either weak, trying to bail in 3 of a suit, possibly but not necessarily clubs, or various strong hands." [3] "Artificial, forcing, asking about the majors, at least game-invitational. This is almost the only call he can make that doesn't immediately place the contract, so doesn't necessarily say anything about majors." [4] "...Most often we'll play there, but could be the start of a slam try." [5] I don't mean to be picking on the system with your name associated with it - I play it, and I enjoy it, and I think it's good. It just happens to have several good examples, and I can guarantee we're on the same page - quite literally, in this case :-). I also find it interesting that EHAA, which causes "is that legal" queries and various other complaints every time I play it, is both (IMHO)legal on the ACBL *Limited* Convention Chart and EBU level 2 legal (but not allowed except in the highest level of Australian bridge, because the opening 2-bids don't guarantee rule-of-15). ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 05:46:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:46:17 +1100 (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 FAA20431 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:46:08 +1100 (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 NAA20254 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:46:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991117134712.006a6a58@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:47:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:38 AM 11/17/99 +0000, David wrote: > So now you want to let players take the Law into their own hands, make >their own decisions, and ignore the Laws, solely to avoid committee >hearings? That is deranged. I'm strongly inclined towards David's position on L73B1, and what he writes above appears, at first reading, to be unarguable. But I've also been thinking about Marv's anecdote, and I'm not entirely satisfied. Just suppose... I'm playing in a Flight A game with a relatively inexperienced partner. My opponents are familiar, but not particularly close friends, although I've seen them often enough to know that they are ethical and sportsmanlike players, and not bridge lawyers. They make a bid, and my partner asks what it means. Now the opponents don't know my partner, but they know me, and it is a Flight A game, so they assume that my partner is reasonably experienced, and respond with a truthful but rather cryptic explanation of their agreement that would be 100% satisfactory had I been playing with one of my regular partners. But they have not fully disclosed their agreement, and are technically in violation of L75C. And I can tell that my partner is still confused about what the bid meant, but is not well-versed in the subtleties of the rules, and is perhaps somewhat intimidated by playing at this level to begin with, and is assuming that he has been given all of the information to which he is entitled. What I "should" do, of course, is keep my mouth shut, then, should it turn out that my side has been damaged by the MI, call the TD, go before the AC, make my case and ask for an adjusted score. But suppose I don't. Suppose that instead, I turn to my opponents and say, "My partner isn't very experienced, and I can tell that he really doesn't understand your explanation. Would you mind giving him a more detailed explanation?" I have knowingly and deliberately violated L73B1. If I've misjudged my opponents, they will call the TD. I will freely confess my crime, and take my punishment willingly. But I haven't misjudged. My opponents say, "Not at all," and happily elaborate on their previous explanation for my partner's benefit. By doing so, they are knowingly and deliberately violating L9B. We have become partners in crime. And we know it. And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts (well, doughnuts do cost close to a dollar these days, but you can't fight cliches) that we'll all leave the game happier, and that the next time I encounter these opponents the atmosphere around the table will be much more friendly and pleasant than it would have been had I done what I should have, kept my mouth shut, called the TD, and let an AC sort it all out. Just to be clear, let me restate what has happened: We have taken the law into our own hands. We have made our own decision. We have ignored the laws. We have done so purely to avoid a committee hearing. Now we (BLML participants) have all agreed in the past that knowingly and deliberately violating the laws is the essence of what it means to act unethically. But, somehow, the actions in this hypothetical scenario just don't *feel* unethical. Am I the only one who feels this way? Does anyone else out there feel like what we have done ultimately redounds to the benefit of the game of bridge? Am I deranged? 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 Nov 18 05:48:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:25:51 +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 DAA19921 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:25:39 +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 11o7tF-0008Jy-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:25:08 +0000 Message-ID: <8N1fEoAfysM4Ew+f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:41:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> <004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991117100023.0068fd18@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991117100023.0068fd18@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps it is time I tried an example. 1NT x xx ? You hold xxxx xxx xxx xxx Oh dear! But the 1NT opener alerts! You ask, and he says it is Aardvark, ie it forces 2C, showing a weak hand with a single suit. Opener is forced to bid 2C, then responder will tell you his suit. You can see their CC, and you can see that they do not play Aardvark. Still, the confusion might give you a chance of getting out of this alive. Oppos are known to you as ethical players: how can you take advantage? The bidding proceeds 1NT x xx[a] p 2C p 2H ? Now, you want partner to pass this out, don't you? 2H is no doubt forcing, and is probably going to be passed by opener, and you are booked for a good board here - if only you can shut partner up! How can you get him to pass? Easy peasy! Ask RHO what the 2C bid means. Since he is ethical, his reply will make it clear that his xx was not Aardvark, and partner will realise that it would be a good idea to shut up. UI does not matter: LHO who is perfectly ethical will know he is required to pass 2H. Congratulations: you have just made sure that partner will pass, and various people apparently consider the method legal. Do 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 Nov 18 05:53:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:53:04 +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 FAA20468 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:52:54 +1100 (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 11oAC4-00009z-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:52:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:47:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: claim revisited In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Martin Sinot writes >Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >>How would you appreciate rationality in this one? >> >>Dealer:East, EW vulnerable, matchpoints >> >> 107 >> J84 - 1S - 2C >> A94 - 2S - 3D >> AKJ107 - 3S - 4S >> AQ6 9 - - - >> Q1075 962 >> Q105 KJ8732 >> Q42 963 >> KJ85432 >> AK3 >> 6 >> 85 >> >>H7 lead, 4,2,A >>C5, 4,A,3 >>S10, 9,2,A >>C2, K,6,8 >>CJ, 9,S8,CQ >>SK,6 >> >>At this point, declarer claims 12 tricks: "all mine". > >I would give only the SQ to the defenders, the trick that >cannot be lost. I can't believe that South didn't know that >SQ was still with the defenders. When the S10 was taken with >the ace, South assumed that East had the queen. Now that the >spade six drops under the king, he "knows" that the queen will >fall in East and thus can claim all tricks. Any line which does not yield 11 tricks would be irrational IMO. At the YC the TD wouldn't even get called. Declarer would just say "Nice one! 11 tricks ok?" and the oppo would chuckle and agree. 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 05:53:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:53:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA20485 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:53:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:53:35 -0800 Message-ID: <000901bf312d$119c2b80$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911171635.LAA18721@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:53:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Let's look at the other side of the coin. Once it is agreed that the "pro question" in its rawest form (solely for partner's benefit, no MI involved) is illegal, does it not follow that an opponent has the right to refuse to answer it? But we need a proper procedure. I think the TD must be called immediately, because (1) arguing with the pro will be a waste of time, and (2) an infraction should be handled by the TD, not by a player. Now, what does one say to the TD? We need a formula statement to be used on every such occasion, because one has to be careful to avoid an accusation of deliberate wrongdoing. How about: "My opponent has asked a question to which I believe s/he knows the answer. Am I correct in saying that I need not answer it?" If I am not satisfied with the TD's ruling, is it appealable? I would love to haul an unethical pro before an NABC AC, and get the matter into the Daily Bulletin and NABC casebook. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 06:28:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 06:28:13 +1100 (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 GAA20570 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 06:28:04 +1100 (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 OAA24848 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:28:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991117142909.0068be14@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:29:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:21 PM 11/17/99 +0000, twm wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> LHO offered a correct explanation of the >> partnership agreement. > >"Pass forces me to redouble" is a *correct* explanation of all of the >following possible agreements. > >Pass = <5 points and a 6 card suit - I must redouble. >Pass = >10 points and a desire to penalise you - I must redouble. >Pass = either of the above - I must redouble. > >Personally I would not regard it as an *adequate* explanation of any of >the above agreements, nor do I regard "even a novice should know enough to >ask further questions/be aware of the most common meaning" as suitable >protection for the NOS. I'd hate to think that a director should both bar >the sorting-out MI TD call and fail to adjust subsequently. (A sorting >out MI question doesn't come up here since it is not the "more experienced >player's" turn to ask). I agree with Tim here. *If* "Pass = any agreement as to specific HCP counts or suit length - I must redouble", then "I must redouble", while perhaps "correct" in the sense of "true", is certainly not a *proper* explanation of the partnership agreement. But I saw nothing in Marv's post to suggest that this was the case. When I play this way, my agreement is "Pass = I must redouble, and then assume that partner will clarify his intentions forthwith in some obvious manner", then it is an adequate explanation, and to go on about what I believe to be the "obvious manners" given the various possible ensuing auctions would seem to be adding a gratutitous and uncalled-for bridge lesson. In real life, OTOH, if, as Michael has suggested they might appropriately do, my opponents had "pre-alerted" me to the fact that one of them was an inexperienced duplicate player who might require an unusually detailed and complete explanation of agreements that an experienced tournament player would be expected to know, I would decide that such a bridge lesson had been, in fact, literally "called for", and would happily provide it. But under normal circumstances I would feel that to do so would be condescending to the point of insult. 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 Nov 18 07:07:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:31:09 +1100 (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 EAA20254 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:31:01 +1100 (EST) From: dburn@btinternet.com Received: from thorium ([194.75.226.70] helo=btinternet.com) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11o8us-0003D7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:30:46 +0000 Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:30:30 GMT Subject: The ize have it X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.2s, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3832e636.294.0@btinternet.com> X-User-Info: 193.113.132.181 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Americanise! >Oops - you are right. No, he isn't. It is correct in English English (and automatic in American English) when forming a verb from an adjective or a noun to use the suffix "-ize" rather than "-ise". (See Partridge and other eminent authorities rather than take my word for this.) The use of "-ise" is not wrong, and is sanctioned by current English dictionaries. However, this represents a triumph of jingoism over exactitude, and people who insist on its use reveal themselves to be no more than linguistic snobs. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 08:18:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:18:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20852 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:18:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:17:56 -0800 Message-ID: <005c01bf3141$3c612d20$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com><000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6><3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com><90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk><3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com><3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com><004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com><3.0.1.32.19991117100023.0068fd18@pop.cais.com> <8N1fEoAfysM4Ew+f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:17:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 (in long lines): > > Perhaps it is time I tried an example. > > 1NT x xx ? > > You hold xxxx > xxx > xxx > xxx > > Oh dear! But the 1NT opener alerts! You ask, and he says it is > Aardvark, ie it forces 2C, showing a weak hand with a single suit. > Opener is forced to bid 2C, then responder will tell you his suit. > > You can see their CC, and you can see that they do not play Aardvark. > Still, the confusion might give you a chance of getting out of this > alive. Oppos are known to you as ethical players: how can you take > advantage? > > The bidding proceeds > > 1NT x xx[a] p > 2C p 2H ? > > Now, you want partner to pass this out, don't you? 2H is no doubt > forcing, and is probably going to be passed by opener, and you are > booked for a good board here - if only you can shut partner up! How can > you get him to pass? > > Easy peasy! Ask RHO what the 2C bid means. Since he is ethical, his > reply will make it clear that his xx was not Aardvark, and partner will > realise that it would be a good idea to shut up. UI does not matter: > LHO who is perfectly ethical will know he is required to pass 2H. > > Congratulations: you have just made sure that partner will pass, and > various people apparently consider the method legal. > > Do you? No. Which suggests that a general regulation might read: "It is not permitted to question an unAlerted call when one already knows the answer." This would cover David's example as well as the "pro question." Further, I would consider information clearly shown on the opposing CC as *known* by a player with adequate eyesight. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 08:48:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:48:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20917 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:48:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:48:22 -0800 Message-ID: <006801bf3145$7cfe2c80$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca><199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.1.32.19991117134712.006a6a58@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:48:22 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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, reasonably: > , David wrote: > > > So now you want to let players take the Law into their own hands, make > >their own decisions, and ignore the Laws, solely to avoid committee > >hearings? That is deranged. > > I'm strongly inclined towards David's position on L73B1, and what he writes > above appears, at first reading, to be unarguable. But I've also been > thinking about Marv's anecdote, and I'm not entirely satisfied. Just > suppose... > (snip of inadvertently poor disclosure) > > What I "should" do, of course, is keep my mouth shut, then, should it turn > out that my side has been damaged by the MI, call the TD, go before the AC, > make my case and ask for an adjusted score. > > But suppose I don't. Suppose that instead, I turn to my opponents and say, > "My partner isn't very experienced, and I can tell that he really doesn't > understand your explanation. Would you mind giving him a more detailed > explanation?" > > I have knowingly and deliberately violated L73B1. If I've misjudged my > opponents, they will call the TD. I will freely confess my crime, and take > my punishment willingly. > > But I haven't misjudged. My opponents say, "Not at all," and happily > elaborate on their previous explanation for my partner's benefit. By doing > so, they are knowingly and deliberately violating L9B. We have become > partners in crime. And we know it. > > And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts (well, doughnuts do cost close to a > dollar these days, but you can't fight cliches) that we'll all leave the > game happier, and that the next time I encounter these opponents the > atmosphere around the table will be much more friendly and pleasant than it > would have been had I done what I should have, kept my mouth shut, called > the TD, and let an AC sort it all out. > > Just to be clear, let me restate what has happened: We have taken the law > into our own hands. We have made our own decision. We have ignored the > laws. We have done so purely to avoid a committee hearing. > > Now we (BLML participants) have all agreed in the past that knowingly and > deliberately violating the laws is the essence of what it means to act > unethically. But, somehow, the actions in this hypothetical scenario just > don't *feel* unethical. Am I the only one who feels this way? Does anyone > else out there feel like what we have done ultimately redounds to the > benefit of the game of bridge? Am I deranged? > My social bridge friends enjoy their game thoroughly, even though they break rules right and left. I think any game is better, and more fun, when played by the rules. Sometimes the rules are inconvenient, seemingly unnecessary, and fit subjects for the application of "situational ethics," but it's better to go by the book. Those who write the Laws are trying their best to make the game fair and enjoyable, not to create an exercise in legal niceties, and we should follow what they write. SOs ought to make clear that a player explaining a call must ensure that the explanation is both complete and fully understood. Any shortcut is at one's own risk. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 08:50:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:50:18 +1100 (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 IAA20936 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:50:10 +1100 (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 QAA25828; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:50:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA116105400; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:50:01 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA017405400; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:50:00 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:49:52 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Withdrawal of concession Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, martin@spase.nl 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 IAA20937 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Consider the following endgame: S: KQ H: - D: - C: 7 S: 6 S: - H: J10 H: 75 D: - D: - C: - C: 4 S: - H: 62 D: - C: 2 South is declarer in a spade contract. West is on lead and plays the HJ. South now says: "One trick for you." Everybody agrees. While writing down the score South wakes up and calls the TD, saying that he simply has the rest. Now what? Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl [Laval Dubreuil] Law 71C: Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until round ends, the TD shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the renaining cards. The only logical reason why S conceeded a trick is he did not realise his C7 was good. No problem with the remaining S; he can ruff high. Then the only normal play on HJ is to ruff in dummy, get the remaining S and play C7. I would tend to rule "no trick to E-W". But things are never so simple with these Laws. If S go on playing on HJ, he can discard this "no good" C7 from dummy, saying "I give you this trick and take the rest". It is a "normal" play if he did not see that this C7 is a trick. He can also ruff HJ and play C7 having forget the outstanding trump... What now ? No answer without the "table feeling", but I still tend to rule "no trick to E-W" Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 09:02:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:02:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (exim@mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20972 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:01:50 +1100 (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 11oD92-0005qt-00; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:01:40 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA216306099; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:01:39 +0100 Subject: Re: Random minors To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:01:39 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <000501bf2fbf$7d143ac0$4f5108c3@swhki5i6> from "Grattan Endicott" at Nov 15, 1999 10:12:45 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 Grattan Endicott: >-----Original Message----- >From: ton kooijman >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; michael >amos >Date: 15 November 1999 21:04 >Subject: Re: Random minors > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: michael amos >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Date: Sunday, November 14, 1999 4:18 AM >>Subject: Random minors >> >>> >>>Regulations are the EBU's Orange Book as far as legal conventions are >>>concerned >>> >>>I am called to the table by a pair who query the legality of their >>>opponents' method >>> >>>With a 5 card suit they open that minor but with 3-3 or 4-4 or 4-3 or >>>3-4 they open 1C or 1D "at random" - these are normally balanced hands >>>where the intention is to rebid in NTs >>> >+=+ Orange Book: 9.1.5 - "You may not have an >agreement to make random calls". [This may or >may not have been intended for such a case, >but the words being what they are I see nothing >to say it does not apply. It seems to me that >the partnership is required to specify the basis >of its choice of bid.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Wasn't this passage intended to work against conventions like 1C (strong) 1S ("I have 13 cards")?? David probably will be able to clarify. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 09:13:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:13:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (exim@mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.98]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21020 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:13:21 +1100 (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 11oDKC-0006tK-00; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:13:12 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA218676792; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:13:12 +0100 Subject: Re: Demonstrable Bridge reason To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:13:11 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991117082354.0068c9d4@pop.cais.com> from "Eric Landau" at Nov 17, 1999 08:23:54 AM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Eric Landau: > >At 02:49 AM 11/14/99 +0000, michael wrote: > >>Game All Dealer East >> >>West North East South >> 1S 2H >>Pass Pass* Pass >> >> >>North thought for some time before passing (North and East screenmates) >> >>When dummy appeared East called TD "to reserve rights" - she said at >>this stage that she had been put off protecting by North's thinking >> >>North held >> >>x >>xx >>A9xxxx >>87xx >> >>2H-3 >> >>TD recalled at end of hand - North explained that he had a transfer >>mechanism available to play in 3D - but decided his hand was unsuitable >>holding two hearts and single spade >> >>How do you rule? > >Your choice is to either let the score stand citing L73D1 or adjust citing >L73F2. N has cited a "bridge reason for the action", so the question >hinges on whether you believe that reason to be "demonstrable" (as >Michael's subject line suggests). Well, if you believe him then he has >"demonstrated" that he had a "bridge reason"; if you believe he is >bridge-lawyering after the fact then he has not. That's a call that has to >be made by someone who was there and talked to him. I think E is bridge lawyering with his 10 count and a H singleton. Nobody can convince me that he did not know that W had made a penalty pass over 2H. How on earth could N have both values and H and not bid over 2H? With or without N's tank E knows that N either has a weak hand with some H support (practically impossible because then W would have acted), or short hearts. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 09:14:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:14:54 +1100 (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 JAA21039 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:14:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegoe.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.14]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA25212 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:14:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991117171036.0073d4e0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:10:36 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991117134712.006a6a58@pop.cais.com> References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Comments are invited on the following mental experiment: You are playing in a game with a relatively inexperienced, shy, partner, and against familiar opponents. You hear the following auction: LHO P RHO You 1H Dbl 2NT ? No alert to the 2nt bid, for whatever reason. You know the opponents play Jordan, but are pretty sure that partner could not know this, and the information could be important in subsequent developments. You consider asking, but being a strict devotee of WBFLC interpretations, decide that you cannot ask for partner's benefit. But as you think about it, you realize that you're not completely certain about the opponents' agreement here. And after all, they didn't alert, so maybe you are wrong. Maybe you _should_ ask, before leaping off to the 4S bid you were considering. You ask for an explanation. Is your question legal/ethical? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 09:16:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:16:31 +1100 (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 JAA21058 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:16:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegoe.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.67.14]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07923 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:16:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991117171338.0073d4e0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:13:38 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991117134712.006a6a58@pop.cais.com> References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:47 PM 11/17/99 -0500, Eric wrote: >I'm playing in a Flight A game with a relatively inexperienced partner. My >opponents are familiar, but not particularly close friends, although I've >seen them often enough to know that they are ethical and sportsmanlike >players, and not bridge lawyers. They make a bid, and my partner asks what >it means. Now the opponents don't know my partner, but they know me, and >it is a Flight A game, so they assume that my partner is reasonably >experienced, and respond with a truthful but rather cryptic explanation of >their agreement that would be 100% satisfactory had I been playing with one >of my regular partners. But they have not fully disclosed their agreement, >and are technically in violation of L75C. And I can tell that my partner >is still confused about what the bid meant, but is not well-versed in the >subtleties of the rules, and is perhaps somewhat intimidated by playing at >this level to begin with, and is assuming that he has been given all of the >information to which he is entitled. > >What I "should" do, of course, is keep my mouth shut, then, should it turn >out that my side has been damaged by the MI, call the TD, go before the AC, >make my case and ask for an adjusted score. > >But suppose I don't. Suppose that instead, I turn to my opponents and say, >"My partner isn't very experienced, and I can tell that he really doesn't >understand your explanation. Would you mind giving him a more detailed >explanation?" > >I have knowingly and deliberately violated L73B1. If I've misjudged my >opponents, they will call the TD. I will freely confess my crime, and take >my punishment willingly. > >But I haven't misjudged. My opponents say, "Not at all," and happily >elaborate on their previous explanation for my partner's benefit. By doing >so, they are knowingly and deliberately violating L9B. We have become >partners in crime. And we know it. > >And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts (well, doughnuts do cost close to a >dollar these days, but you can't fight cliches) that we'll all leave the >game happier, and that the next time I encounter these opponents the >atmosphere around the table will be much more friendly and pleasant than it >would have been had I done what I should have, kept my mouth shut, called >the TD, and let an AC sort it all out. > >Just to be clear, let me restate what has happened: We have taken the law >into our own hands. We have made our own decision. We have ignored the >laws. We have done so purely to avoid a committee hearing. > >Now we (BLML participants) have all agreed in the past that knowingly and >deliberately violating the laws is the essence of what it means to act >unethically. But, somehow, the actions in this hypothetical scenario just >don't *feel* unethical. Am I the only one who feels this way? Does anyone >else out there feel like what we have done ultimately redounds to the >benefit of the game of bridge? Am I deranged? > FWIW, the reason the actions don't feel unethical is because they are not. The game is better, in the sense of being more closely in tune with the values expressed in the Laws, than it would be to let partner wallow in his ignorance and then attempt to salvage the resulting disaster in committee. I will go further than that (natually). Most everybody else seems quite sanguine about the expectation that your legal rights will be protected if you follow the "legal" course of keeping your partner in the dark. But this view is unrealistic in at least two ways: as others have pointed out, there are no guarantees. A TD or AC may take a very dim view of your decision to keep silent and try to pick up the board via a favorable ruling. And it may turn out that the condition of your game is such that pursuit of the question is pointless anyway, but in that case the opponents will have benefitted by their MI, and others disadvantaged in consequence. The real problem, though, is in the expense of time and energy used up in resolving this through the TD/AC path. Obviously many on this list (and elsewhere, I am certain) are genuine and deeply committed to the proposition that the partner's benefit question is illegal and unethical. With due respect to that point of view, it nonetheless strikes me (and undoubtedly will strike your opponents, if it comes to that) as the very slimiest of bridge-lawyerly tricks to sit silently while you know that the opponents have inadequately informed your partner, and then try and win the board by a favorable MI ruling. Indeed, the foul odor of such antics is clearly the driving impulse behind the ACBL and EBU regulations published elsewhere in this thread. No, it seems to me that if you're truly committed to the "can't help partner" school of legal interpretation, you have an obligation to sit still even after the hand makes it obvious _to you_ that your side was damaged by partner's ignorance. If partner feels damaged, then of course he can call the cops. But for you to do so is the very epitome of "double shot". Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 09:58:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:58:02 +1100 (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 JAA21168 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:57:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from p04s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.5] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11oE0J-0001n1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:56:43 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:31:51 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf314b$8afce140$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, November 17, 1999 7:18 PM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > > > Perhaps it is time I tried an example. > > 1NT x xx ? > > You hold xxxx > xxx > xxx > xxx > > Oh dear! But the 1NT opener alerts! You ask, and he says it is >Aardvark, ie it forces 2C, showing a weak hand with a single suit. >Opener is forced to bid 2C, then responder will tell you his suit. > > You can see their CC, and you can see that they do not play Aardvark. >Still, the confusion might give you a chance of getting out of this >alive. Oppos are known to you as ethical players: how can you take >advantage? > > The bidding proceeds > > 1NT x xx[a] p > 2C p 2H ? > > Now, you want partner to pass this out, don't you? 2H is no doubt >forcing, and is probably going to be passed by opener, and you are >booked for a good board here - if only you can shut partner up! How can >you get him to pass? > > Easy peasy! Ask RHO what the 2C bid means. Since he is ethical, his >reply will make it clear that his xx was not Aardvark, and partner will >realise that it would be a good idea to shut up. UI does not matter: >LHO who is perfectly ethical will know he is required to pass 2H. > > Congratulations: you have just made sure that partner will pass, and >various people apparently consider the method legal. > > Do you? Of course not. You have given an excellent example of when it would very obviously be unethical to ask. However in the example I posted I feel that the situation is somewhat different. West has a need to know.how East has interpreted the unalerted 2C.(ask when you have a need to know), if the answer is that it should have been alerted West will know that the 3C is not natural. If the answer is that it was natural West will know that 3C is a major suit ask. If the answer is that it should have been alerted East may wish to change his 3C bid. West's question has communicated information to East. Is the answer authorised to East? Does this come into the pro-question category of unethical. I think it does, but always remember that West did have a need to know. If there had been screens West would have asked South if North had Clubs and the problem of communicating by asking is solved. So with screens the question is surely ethical. In that case why not make the answers to all questions asked by a player UI to his partner. (I can see it now. "I didn't hear that answer" "You didn't ask the question") Any damage from MI suffered by E/W can be addressed by the TD after the play. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 10:06:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:06:57 +1100 (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 KAA21204 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:06:34 +1100 (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 SAA20283 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:06:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991117180732.00700388@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:07:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <19991117182550.83331.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:25 PM 11/17/99 GMT, Michael wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >>At 05:32 PM 11/15/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: > >[Marvin's story - 1NT(weak)-X-P!("forces XX")] > >>I agree with the TD here. LHO offered a correct explanation of the >>partnership agreement. > >But not a complete one. >From this and other responses, it sounds like I was wrong about this one. I admit that I've only played this a couple of times, and must not understand what the "usual" agreement is about it. What I thought I was playing is that I was expected to redouble and then work out what partner was doing from the logic of the subsequent auction. I would expect partner to either have either any hand in which he would be content to play in 1NTXX or some kind of hand that wants to run but doesn't know where. If I had agreed that partner is always strong, or weak, or whatever, I would certainly offer that information freely. I would not, for example, assume that 1NT-X-XX-P-2H was my method for getting to 2H -- if that were the case, I would have had to have made an agreement that 1NT-X-2H was something else (invitational?), and would have offered that as part of my explanation. >It ranks up there with 1D(precision) - >"could be short". The reasons why it could be short are relevant, certain >other inferences from the system are relevant, and even >an experienced player who has had the misfortune of never playing >against a strong club system before will not be able to work >it out. "Could be as short as 2 with 4 clubs and a 4-card major, >may have up to 5 clubs, often longer clubs than diamonds, 11-15" is >complete, and reasonably succinct. Now, in the ACBL, one is >expected by regulation to be familiar with "strong or weak no trumps >with or without 5-card majors. The forcing opening will most often be >either a natural, strong 2-bid or an artificial forcing opening of 1C or >2C". So perhaps "could be short" is technically legal. But I >don't like it. I accept "could be as short as 2", but then again, >I play Precision, so I understand the inferences. I agree that "could be short" is woefully inadequate for a Precision 1D opening, and wouldn't be inclined to accept "could be as short as 2". Again, I'm not much of a Precision player, but my understanding of the system is that my actual agreement would be much more specific than that. I'd probably describe it as "11-15 HCP; could be as short as 2 if he doesn't have a 13-15 NT hand, a 5-card major, a major-club 4-5, or a club suit good enough for a natural 2C opening (did I get that right?). >>That a novice at the table could think of only one >>possible reason as to why the partnership would have such an agreement, >>namely that the passer wanted to play the hand in 1NTXX, was because they >>were a novice, not because they had been in any way misinformed about their >>opponents' agreement. > >Oh really? Ian and I are playing our TD-call club against you. >The auction goes 1C! (13+, SAF)-2C!(also 13+); 2D!(please >describe your hand). You truly think that that is "complete explanation" >and that any non-novice will be able to work out >all the inferences available to us from the auction? [1] > >We're GF (ok, that one should be obvious). >Opener either has a very strong hand, a hand that wants to be >declarer for some reason, or a very difficult hand type to >describe in our methods (probably a three-suiter or a freak two-suiter). >Well, or maybe he just feels like it (it's not >called the "whiny relay" for nothing). > >[1] In this system (which is primarily designed to be as wonky as >possible while still being GCC-legal, rather than "good"), we play >transfer rebids by opener after 1C (13+, any except certain balanced >hands)- 2C(13+, "partner, we may have a game!") - except for 2D, the >"whiny relay" - "Partner, I don't wanna describe my hand. You describe your >hand." - which also asks for transfer rebids. Well, I don't know this method at all, but I would be satisfied with 1C "opening bid, forcing" - P - 2C either "artificial game force..." or "game force with clubs...", whichever it is, "...any other bid would be a transfer" - P - 2D "artificial; asks for further description". In the unlikely event that I needed to know more before choosing my action over 2D, I would expect to have to ask further. Of course, I would certainly expect responder's rebid to be alerted and explained as showing a 2-suiter or 3-suiter, or whatever "further description" was being provided at that point (and, given that it asks for transfer rebids, yet another alert when opener rebid over it), but I have no complaints about the adequacy of the description of 2D. >I stand by my description in my response to Marvin's post >"Artificial, forcing, has either a one-suited bailout or wants to >play 1NTxx." as a *minimum* complete explanation. I also stand by >my dislike of the "forces XX" from the "explaining Blackwood" point >of view. I don't see the analogy. How does one "explain Blackwood" other than "asks for aces" (or "asks for key cards"), with a further alert due (at the end of the auction in the ACBL) if the responses are anything other than the usual, common and expected ones. >Other (less-constructed) examples: > >2NT Lebensohl - is "forces 3C" full and complete explanation? [2] > >[2] As opposed to "Artificial, forces 3C, either weak, trying to >bail in 3 of a suit, possibly but not necessarily clubs, or various strong >hands." When I play Lebensohl (I'm on familar territory at last!), I have very explicit agreements. But I consider it adequate to explain it as, "Artificial; requires me to bid 3C; shows either a one-suited hand that's weaker than if he bid his suit at the 3-level or a hand that can play in 3NT, possibly with interest in a 4-4 major fit, with a stopper in your suit." I will then explain partner's suit rebids as "to play" or "invitational", as appropriate, or explain his cue-bid as "showing 4H/S", or "asking for a 4-card major", or whatever. I would not explain, however, that "a one-suited hand that's weaker than an immediate suit bid" might be one-suited in clubs, nor would I alert partner's subsequent pass of 3C as showing a desire to play in 3C; that would be carrying the obvious a bit too far. >How about 2C after an EHAA 10-12 NT? "asking me about my major >suit lengths." [3] That would be totally misleading, as it suggests that you are necessarily interested in partner's major suit lengths. >[3] "Artificial, forcing, asking about the majors, at least >game-invitational. This is almost the only call he can make >that doesn't immediately place the contract, so doesn't >necessarily say anything about majors." Although this 2C bid is often casually called "EHAA Stayman" by some folks, I have found it best to avoid any mention of either Stayman or 4-card majors at all; it only confuses the opponents into thinking it's somehow similar to their 2C bid. I explain simply as, "just about any invitational or better with which he doesn't know where he wants to play" (without enumerating the few exceptions; see below). Then I expect partner to alert my next bid; this is the time to introduce the subject of 4-card majors (2D "artificial; denies a 4-card major", 2H "promises 4 H and denies 4 S", etc.) >How about 2NT after an EHAA 10-12 NT? "bid your better minor, >pd" [4][5] > >[4] "...Most often we'll play there, but could be the start of >a slam try." Well, that's not my agreement. The way I play the 2NT bid, I describe it as "asks me to bid my better minor", and that's all. But I play that over, say, 3C by partner, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C and 7C are all possible contracts (that, BTW, is one time I don't bid 2C when I'm not sure where I intend to play the hand; the only others are 4NT, invitational, 5NT, forcing to the 6-level and suggesting a grand, and 5H/S, GSF in the named suit). >I will admit that not waiting for her second chance to bid (i.e. working out >that if opener has to redouble, she'll get a second >chance to bid) is noviceish, but I don't think that she needs to >understand the various rescue systems over weak NT doubled (or >even that they exist or why they exist, despite the ACBL Alert procedure >reg. quoted above), never mind work them out from first principles, to get >protection. I certainly agree, but if I'm playing one of those "various rescue systems" then I have much more in the way of agreements than "forces XX", and must explain whatever agreements I have. But as I said above, on those occasions on which I have felt compelled to play "forces XX" (a method which I really don't like), that has been the totality of my agreement, and so I initially read Marv's original post assuming that that was the case for his opponents. >>The "explanation" that Marv would have preferred >>sounds to me like an explanantion of the partnership agreement >>with a bridge lesson thrown in for good measure. > >I do agree with that. But that doesn't excuse the pair from >having to explain what the bid *shows*, not just what's going to >happen. And the bid shows (assuming Guoba rescues here, the >pair at the table could be playing a different system) > >One of: >A hand wanting to play 1NTxx. >A one-suited hand, that wishes to escape from 1NT. > >(actually, now that I think about it, I believe that in Guoba >rescues, an immediate XX shows the one-suited rescue, and pass is >the way to show a two-suited rescue with non-touching suits. >Change all my quotes to be the actual agreement. Can you tell I >refuse to play a rescue system that regularly gives the opponents >two shots at deciding what to do (except when I want them to pull)? :-) Well, there was a time when I used to play with Mr. Guoba fairly often (assuming that's John, of Toronto), but I have no idea what "Guoba rescues" are, and didn't play them back then. >>Even those who support the position that the "Kaplan question" is (or >>should be) legal seem, for the most part, to agree that the blatant >"pro >>question" should be illegal. Marv's anecdote demonstrates the >difficulty >>of drawing the line between them, which, IMO, supports >those who, with >>David, think that we should allow neither. >> >I agree, as I've said before (lesser of evils quote). Especially as >I obviously disagree with you on this specific ruling. > >Michael > >[5] I don't mean to be picking on the system with your name >associated with it - I play it, and I enjoy it, and I think >it's good. It just happens to have several good examples, >and I can guarantee we're on the same page - quite literally, >in this case :-). I also find it interesting that EHAA, which >causes "is that legal" queries and various other complaints >every time I play it, is both (IMHO)legal on the ACBL *Limited* >Convention Chart and EBU level 2 legal (but not allowed except >in the highest level of Australian bridge, because the opening >2-bids don't guarantee rule-of-15). I don't know the Limited Convention Chart, but back in the late 1970s EHAA, minus a couple of conventions (1NT-P-2NT for minors and passed-hand jump shifts into singletons with 4-4-4-1 -- I normally play a lot more than those, but none of the others are intrinsic to EHAA) was ruled legal for "Green Card" games at the ACBL Nationals (including even 1NT-P-2C, since back then, in the days of forcing Stayman, any method of 4-card major asks in which 2H/S showed 4 was Class A), which I expect were even more restricted than today's LCC games. 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 Nov 18 10:18:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:18:52 +1100 (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 KAA21245 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:18:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-52-250.s250.tnt1.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.52.250]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA11388 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:18:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004c01bf3151$f490b720$fa34accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca><199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.1.32.19991117171338.0073d4e0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:17:35 -0500 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: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 5:13 PM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > I will go further than that (natually). Most everybody else seems quite > sanguine about the expectation that your legal rights will be protected if > you follow the "legal" course of keeping your partner in the dark. But this > view is unrealistic in at least two ways: as others have pointed out, there > are no guarantees. A TD or AC may take a very dim view of your decision to > keep silent and try to pick up the board via a favorable ruling. And it may > turn out that the condition of your game is such that pursuit of the > question is pointless anyway, but in that case the opponents will have > benefitted by their MI, and others disadvantaged in consequence. > > The real problem, though, is in the expense of time and energy used up in > resolving this through the TD/AC path. Do it anyway. That's why they pay TD's the big bucks ;) >Obviously many on this list (and > elsewhere, I am certain) are genuine and deeply committed to the > proposition that the partner's benefit question is illegal and unethical. > With due respect to that point of view, it nonetheless strikes me (and > undoubtedly will strike your opponents, if it comes to that) as the very > slimiest of bridge-lawyerly tricks to sit silently while you know that the > opponents have inadequately informed your partner, and then try and win the > board by a favorable MI ruling. Indeed, the foul odor of such antics is > clearly the driving impulse behind the ACBL and EBU regulations published > elsewhere in this thread. > > No, it seems to me that if you're truly committed to the "can't help > partner" school of legal interpretation, you have an obligation to sit > still even after the hand makes it obvious _to you_ that your side was > damaged by partner's ignorance. If partner feels damaged, then of course he > can call the cops. But for you to do so is the very epitome of "double shot". > > Mike Dennis This thread is focussing on asking a question for the benefit of partner. However, it is ignoring another possible route out of the dark. If you have reason to believe MI has occurred, is this not an infraction? While it is illegal for you to ask the question, it cannot be illegal, IMO, for you to summon the TD and tell him (away from the table, if need be) that you believe there has been MI. The TD can then make the determination, and get a full explanation out, if needed, before partner has acted on the MI. Of course, the TD call itself may awaken partner to the importance of being aware of the opponent's auction, and is UI. However, in practice, this is likely to matter only when there was no MI. L9A1. "Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it his turn to call". The only irregularity specifically barred by Law that I can think of off of the top of my head is MI by partner. So, is calling the TD to correct a possible MI infraction by the opponents legal/ethical when partner will benefit from the corrected explanation? Or do we have to bite our tongues and let the MI taint the board, so that the result will later be decided by the TD/AC instead of the players? Do we really want to start limiting the rights of the players to summon the TD when they notice a possible infraction by the opponents? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 10:23:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:23:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21261 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:23:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp206-12.worldonline.nl [195.241.206.12]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA00055; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:22:53 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00d401bf3152$c9779580$0ccef1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: Subject: Re: Withdrawal of concession Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:23:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D1_01BF315B.296DA620" 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_00D1_01BF315B.296DA620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Laval Dubreuil wrote: > > Consider the following endgame: > > S: KQ > H: - > D: - > C: 7 > S: 6 S: - > H: J10 H: 75 > D: - D: - > C: - C: 4 > S: - > H: 62 > D: - > C: 2 > > > South is declarer in a spade contract. West is > on lead and plays the HJ. South now says: "One trick > for you." Everybody agrees. While writing down the score > South wakes up and calls the TD, saying that he simply > has the rest. Now what? > > Martin Sinot > martin@spase.nl > [Laval Dubreuil] > Law 71C: Until the conceding side makes a call on a > subsequent board, or until round ends, the TD shall > cancel the concession of a trick that could not have > been lost by any normal play of the renaining cards. > > The only logical reason why S conceeded a trick is > he did not realise his C7 was good. No problem with > the remaining S; he can ruff high. Then the only normal > play on HJ is to ruff in dummy, get the remaining S and > play C7. I would tend to rule "no trick to E-W". > > But things are never so simple with these Laws. If S > go on playing on HJ, he can discard this "no good" C7 > from dummy, saying "I give you this trick and take the > rest". It is a "normal" play if he did not see that this C7 > is a trick. He can also ruff HJ and play C7 having forget > the outstanding trump... > > What now ? No answer without the "table feeling", > but I still tend to rule "no trick to E-W" > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City I disagree. IMO you quote the appropriate Law, but are too lenient to = South. Clearly, at the moment of the claim he had no idea what the remaining = cards were. This makes both the discarding of the "losing" club and ruffing = but playing the losing club before the remaining trump "normal" plays for South - it apparently took him some time to realise that he had gone = wrong, according to Martin's description of the case. L71C then forbids us to cancel the concession of the trick. Jac ------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01BF315B.296DA620 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Laval Dubreuil wrote:
>
>   Consider the = following=20 endgame:
>
>        &= nbsp;     =20 S:=20 KQ
>          &nb= sp;   =20 H:=20 -
>          &nbs= p;   =20 D:=20 -
>          &nbs= p;   =20 C: 7
>   S:=20 6            =         =20 S: -
>   H:=20 J10           &nbs= p;      =20 H: 75
>   D:=20 -            =         =20 D: -
>   C:=20 -            =         =20 C:=20 4
>          &nbs= p;   =20 S:=20 -
>          &nbs= p;   =20 H:=20 62
>          &nb= sp;   =20 D:=20 -
>          &nbs= p;   =20 C: 2
>
>
>   South is declarer in a spade = contract.=20 West is
>   on lead and plays the HJ. South now says: = "One=20 trick
>   for you." Everybody agrees. While writing = down=20 the score
>   South wakes up and calls the TD, saying = that he=20 simply
>   has the rest. Now = what?
>
>  =20 Martin Sinot
>   martin@spase.nl
>   = [Laval=20 Dubreuil]
>   Law 71C: Until the conceding side makes a = call on=20 a
>   subsequent board, or until round ends, the TD=20 shall
>   cancel the concession of a trick that could = not=20 have
>   been lost by any normal play of the renaining=20 cards.
>
>   The only logical reason why S = conceeded a=20 trick is
>   he did not realise his C7 was good. No = problem=20 with
>   the remaining S; he can ruff high. Then the = only=20 normal
>   play on HJ is to ruff in dummy, get the = remaining S=20 and
>   play C7. I would tend to rule "no trick to=20 E-W".
>
>   But things are never so simple = with these=20 Laws. If S
>   go on playing on HJ, he can discard this = "no=20 good" C7
>   from dummy, saying "I give you = this trick=20 and take the
>   rest". It is a "normal" = play if=20 he did not see that this C7
>   is a trick. He can also = ruff HJ=20 and play C7 having forget
>   the outstanding=20 trump...
>
>   What now ?  No answer without = the=20 "table feeling",
>   but I still tend to rule = "no=20 trick to E-W"
>
>   Laval Du=20 Breuil
>   Quebec City


I disagree. IMO you = quote the=20 appropriate Law, but are too lenient to South.
Clearly, at the moment = of the=20 claim he had no idea what the remaining cards
were. This makes both = the=20 discarding of the "losing" club and ruffing but
playing the = losing=20 club before the remaining trump "normal" plays for
South - = it=20 apparently took him some time to realise that he had gone = wrong,
according to=20 Martin's description of the case. L71C then forbids us to
cancel the=20 concession of the trick.

Jac
------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01BF315B.296DA620-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 11:30:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:30:23 +1100 (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 LAA21436 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:30:10 +1100 (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 ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:28:08 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006801bf3145$7cfe2c80$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca><199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.1.32.19991117134712.006a6a58@pop.cais.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:25:23 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:48 PM -0500 11/17/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >My social bridge friends enjoy their game thoroughly, even though they break >rules right and left. I think any game is better, and more fun, when played by >the rules. Sometimes the rules are inconvenient, seemingly unnecessary, >and fit >subjects for the application of "situational ethics," but it's better to go by >the book. Those who write the Laws are trying their best to make the game fair >and enjoyable, not to create an exercise in legal niceties, and we should >follow >what they write. > >SOs ought to make clear that a player explaining a call must ensure that the >explanation is both complete and fully understood. Any shortcut is at >one's own >risk. SOs ought to do a lot of things they don't. :-) I'm torn. I sympathize with Eric - one ought to try to keep the game friendly, if possible. OTOH, I agree with you, too. Generally, I've taken your approach. At one of the local clubs, there's a player who has _always_ objected to my claims. HIs objection has _always_ been stated in the form "play it out," in spite of the fact that both I and the TD have repeatedly explained to him that the Laws preclude doing so. A couple of weeks ago, he asked my partner (not at the table, and not in my presence) how she could possibly stand to play with someone so arrogant as I. :-/ He said nothing further, and she didn't ask, but I _think_ it's because I've always insisted that we call the TD when he contests a claim (it's always him - his partner has never had a problem with my claims). More recently, I claimed, he made his usual objection, and I called the TD. He complained to the TD that he couldn't see from my hand, the dummy, and his hand, how the play would proceed (I should note that though I always try to include a complete line of play with my claims, he rarely lets me finish stating it before he objects). As it seemed obvious to me (and I think to everybody else) I concluded, perhaps unfairly, that he has some kind of disability that makes it difficult for him to work it out (there's other evidence that leads me to that conclusion, btw), and resolved to try to remember never to claim against him, even when I have nothing but top trumps left in my hand. But the damage is done - I am "arrogant." I don't know what to do about that. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBODNIgL2UW3au93vOEQLTvwCgrBWalWq6Z4snn6iQ6Xoy9ITiO0UAnjbx AQOCiRsbSJF7BqfptxCFFXuX =Vr5q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 11:37:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:37:42 +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 LAA21459 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:37:32 +1100 (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 11oFZV-000Ma0-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:37:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:08:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991117134712.006a6a58@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19991117134712.006a6a58@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes I have huge sympathy with this position, Eric. I think the problem lies in the fact that if we allow this one, where do we scratch the mark and what else do we allow/ not allow. As I said before playing with my son Stephen can be very frustrating, when he doesn't ask. I live with it. chs john >I'm playing in a Flight A game with a relatively inexperienced partner. My >opponents are familiar, but not particularly close friends, although I've >seen them often enough to know that they are ethical and sportsmanlike >players, and not bridge lawyers. They make a bid, and my partner asks what >it means. Now the opponents don't know my partner, but they know me, and >it is a Flight A game, so they assume that my partner is reasonably >experienced, and respond with a truthful but rather cryptic explanation of >their agreement that would be 100% satisfactory had I been playing with one >of my regular partners. But they have not fully disclosed their agreement, >and are technically in violation of L75C. And I can tell that my partner >is still confused about what the bid meant, but is not well-versed in the >subtleties of the rules, and is perhaps somewhat intimidated by playing at >this level to begin with, and is assuming that he has been given all of the >information to which he is entitled. > >What I "should" do, of course, is keep my mouth shut, then, should it turn >out that my side has been damaged by the MI, call the TD, go before the AC, >make my case and ask for an adjusted score. > >But suppose I don't. Suppose that instead, I turn to my opponents and say, >"My partner isn't very experienced, and I can tell that he really doesn't >understand your explanation. Would you mind giving him a more detailed >explanation?" > >I have knowingly and deliberately violated L73B1. If I've misjudged my >opponents, they will call the TD. I will freely confess my crime, and take >my punishment willingly. > >But I haven't misjudged. My opponents say, "Not at all," and happily >elaborate on their previous explanation for my partner's benefit. By doing >so, they are knowingly and deliberately violating L9B. We have become >partners in crime. And we know it. > >And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts (well, doughnuts do cost close to a >dollar these days, but you can't fight cliches) that we'll all leave the >game happier, and that the next time I encounter these opponents the >atmosphere around the table will be much more friendly and pleasant than it >would have been had I done what I should have, kept my mouth shut, called >the TD, and let an AC sort it all out. > >Just to be clear, let me restate what has happened: We have taken the law >into our own hands. We have made our own decision. We have ignored the >laws. We have done so purely to avoid a committee hearing. > >Now we (BLML participants) have all agreed in the past that knowingly and >deliberately violating the laws is the essence of what it means to act >unethically. But, somehow, the actions in this hypothetical scenario just >don't *feel* unethical. Am I the only one who feels this way? Does anyone >else out there feel like what we have done ultimately redounds to the >benefit of the game of bridge? Am I deranged? > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 12:07:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:07:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21512 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:07:31 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id d.0.bfe53469 (3935); Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:06:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.bfe53469.2564ab1b@aol.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:06:35 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/17/99 5:18:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: > kept my mouth shut, called > >the TD, and let an AC sort it all out. there seems to be some kind of understanding that the AC, and not the TD are the ones who sort things out. Wrong, IMO. The TD makes a ruling, the players appeal this ruling, the AC decides whether the TD was correct or not. Please look at this scenario carefully, because that is what the Code of Practice will require. No more of this, there is no ruling when it comes to the AC. We start from scratch. Personalthink this "New" way is the right way to go. Puts the pressure on the TD to make good rulings, and THAT IS WHERE IT BELONGS. The AC, IMO, is a source of relief when the TD is wrong, not the palce to play the hand all over again, from scratch.!!!! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 12:10:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:10:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21539 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:10:41 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id n.0.572279bf (3935); Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:09:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.572279bf.2564abcc@aol.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:09:32 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: hdavis@erols.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/17/99 6:26:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, hdavis@erols.com writes: > > The real problem, though, is in the expense of time and energy used up in > > resolving this through the TD/AC path. > > Do it anyway. That's why they pay TD's the big bucks ;) Sure, can I get a job where you work? You obviously haven't had to contend with the WBF Treasurer. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 12:12:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:12:53 +1100 (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 MAA21560 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:12:46 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id x.0.81c5b121 (3935); Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:11:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.81c5b121.2564ac3c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:11:24 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: ereppert@rochester.rr.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/17/99 7:33:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, ereppert@rochester.rr.com writes: > But the damage is done - I am "arrogant." I don't > know what to do about that. :-) > > Regards, > > Ed The damage is not to you. It is to the "opponent" who is apparently not compos mentis. kojak From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 12:26:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:26:30 +1100 (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 MAA21602 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:26:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:18:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991117171338.0073d4e0@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19991117134712.006a6a58@pop.cais.com> <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:41:16 -0500 To: "Michael S. Dennis" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:13 PM -0500 11/17/99, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >With due respect to that point of view, it nonetheless strikes me (and >undoubtedly will strike your opponents, if it comes to that) as the very >slimiest of bridge-lawyerly tricks to sit silently while you know that the >opponents have inadequately informed your partner, and then try and win the >board by a favorable MI ruling. Indeed, the foul odor of such antics is >clearly the driving impulse behind the ACBL and EBU regulations published >elsewhere in this thread. > >No, it seems to me that if you're truly committed to the "can't help >partner" school of legal interpretation, you have an obligation to sit >still even after the hand makes it obvious _to you_ that your side was >damaged by partner's ignorance. If partner feels damaged, then of course he >can call the cops. But for you to do so is the very epitome of "double shot". Hm. There's another aspect of this: opponents have provided an inadequate explanation. Presumably they aren't aware they have done so. So how does one ensure they don't do it again, to somebody else? I suppose Eric could take them aside after the match, and explain it to them, but they might not be too happy to have that happen. The only alternative seems to me to be to call the TD at some point. 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/AwUBODNVp72UW3au93vOEQKxEwCfflIR3vaQHlT5e2+gUrcwTNZE0sEAoIqI 4rU65Gu0PIiYrnY7eHYbVdM3 =c1PV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 12:38:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:38:22 +1100 (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 MAA21624 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:38:12 +1100 (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 11oGWQ-000P9L-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:38:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:36:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991117171036.0073d4e0@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19991117171036.0073d4e0@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >Comments are invited on the following mental experiment: > >You are playing in a game with a relatively inexperienced, shy, partner, >and against familiar opponents. You hear the following auction: > >LHO P RHO You >1H Dbl 2NT ? > >No alert to the 2nt bid, for whatever reason. You know the opponents play >Jordan, but are pretty sure that partner could not know this, and the >information could be important in subsequent developments. You consider >asking, but being a strict devotee of WBFLC interpretations, decide that >you cannot ask for partner's benefit. > >But as you think about it, you realize that you're not completely certain >about the opponents' agreement here. And after all, they didn't alert, so >maybe you are wrong. Maybe you _should_ ask, before leaping off to the 4S >bid you were considering. You ask for an explanation. As long as you are not sure then you should ask. The fact that it will clear it up for partner is serendipity. But if you *know* then I think you shouldn't ask. chs john > >Is your question legal/ethical? > >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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 12:48:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:46:29 +1100 (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 MAA21643 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:46:21 +1100 (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 11oGeD-000ETW-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:46:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:44:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <0.572279bf.2564abcc@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <0.572279bf.2564abcc@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 11/17/99 6:26:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, >hdavis@erols.com writes: > >> > The real problem, though, is in the expense of time and energy used up in >> > resolving this through the TD/AC path. >> >> Do it anyway. That's why they pay TD's the big bucks ;) > Sure, can I get a job where you work? You obviously haven't had to contend >with the WBF Treasurer. Kojak Poor Kojak, has to travel all the way to Wiesbaden in W Germany to earn an honest buck :)) One of the best run games I've ever played in btw. 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 12:50:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:50:25 +1100 (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 MAA21657 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:50:16 +1100 (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 11oGi7-000Q0l-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:50:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:48:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Withdrawal of concession In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Martin Sinot writes >Consider the following endgame: > > S: KQ > H: - > D: - > C: 7 >S: 6 S: - >H: J10 H: 75 >D: - D: - >C: - C: 4 > S: - > H: 62 > D: - > C: 2 > > >South is declarer in a spade contract. West is >on lead and plays the HJ. South now says: "One trick >for you." Everybody agrees. While writing down the score >South wakes up and calls the TD, saying that he simply >has the rest. Now what? > >Martin Sinot >martin@spase.nl > One trick to them. No claim statement, careless but not irrational to play the club next. 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 12:52:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:52:45 +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 MAA21671 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:52:18 +1100 (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 11oGk5-0001Yx-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:52:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:50:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: The ize have it In-Reply-To: <3832e636.294.0@btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3832e636.294.0@btinternet.com>, dburn@btinternet.com writes >>>Americanise! > >>Oops - you are right. > >No, he isn't. It is correct in English English (and automatic in American >English) >when forming a verb from an adjective or a noun to use the suffix "-ize" rather >than "-ise". (See Partridge and other eminent authorities rather than take >my word for this.) The use of "-ise" is not wrong, and is sanctioned by current >English dictionaries. However, this represents a triumph of jingoism over >exactitude, >and people who insist on its use reveal themselves to be no more than linguistic >snobs. > >David Burn >London, England fair enough. 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 14:27:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:27:36 +1100 (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 OAA21865 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:27:20 +1100 (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 11oIDx-000MIK-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:27:06 +0000 Message-ID: <6UWOycBTp1M4EwOK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:45:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911171635.LAA18721@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <000901bf312d$119c2b80$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <000901bf312d$119c2b80$622ed2cc@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: >Let's look at the other side of the coin. > >Once it is agreed that the "pro question" in its rawest form (solely for >partner's benefit, no MI involved) is illegal, does it not follow that an >opponent has the right to refuse to answer it? > >But we need a proper procedure. > >I think the TD must be called immediately, because (1) arguing with the >pro will be a waste of time, and (2) an infraction should be handled by >the TD, not by a player. > >Now, what does one say to the TD? We need a formula statement to be used >on every such occasion, because one has to be careful to avoid an >accusation of deliberate wrongdoing. > >How about: "My opponent has asked a question to which I believe s/he knows >the answer. Am I correct in saying that I need not answer it?" > >If I am not satisfied with the TD's ruling, is it appealable? I would love >to haul an unethical pro before an NABC AC, and get the matter into the >Daily Bulletin and NABC casebook. If the pro question is illegal, and a TD decides it is not a pro question, then surely that is a matter of judgement and thus very suitable for 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 Thu Nov 18 14:27:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:27:47 +1100 (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 OAA21868 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:27:28 +1100 (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 11oIE9-000MIi-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:27:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:26:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911171609.LAA17588@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <199911171609.LAA17588@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: >David Stevenson writes: >> >> Ron Johnson wrote: >> >David Stevenson writes: >> >> >> >> Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> I believe that people know that they are not permitted to tell their >> >> >>partner how to bid or defend. >> >> >> >> >Of course they know - at least in places like Denmark where the >> >> >authorities have been telling them that for years. But that is >> >> >not what this discussion is about. >> >> >> >> Oh, yes it is. Some people are saying that there is an acceptable >> >> interpretation that they should be allowed to help partner in his play >> >> or defence by asking questions designed with the sole purpose of giving >> >> him that help. >> > >> >Nope. That's how you see it. >> > >> >But you've made it clear in the past that you have an extremist >> >point of view - almost paranoid I'd say - about questions. >> >> Indeed. Perhaps you would explain this. > >The unusually agressive tone of your posts both here and on RGB. > >I've got the impression from some of your posts that you see >questioning as evil. Truly. I do not see how the fact that I think questions are abhorrent in one specific situation - when they are *solely* for partner's benefit - affects my view in other situations. For example, I do not like Marvin's approach of trying to direct people to the CC rather than use questions. Where it is for the person's own benefit, then asking questions tends to be the most efficient way of finding out information. I do not see that my dislike of questions as a means of communicating with partner affects my view on questions asked to find out information. >Now it may be that I'm reading too much into someone who's >just answered the same question once too often. I am talking of a specific situation here - and you are extrapolating to unlike situations. I do not like underleading an ace against a suit contract: to deduce from this that I always dislike underleading an ace seems wrong. >But here you are starting with the assumption of bad motives >on the part of people on the list. Bad motives? No, I just do not understand how people can think this way. I am accused of being forthright in many situations - some think too forthright, but people who were on this list a few years ago will understand why. However, to then assume the opposite seems most unfair. I do not understand how anyone can believe they have a right to communicate with their partner by asking questions - that is true. I am also quite amazed that people think they have that right. I do not suggest they have bad motives, no. >> >> As for referring to Norman Kay as a novice, I am surprised at you, >> >> Jesper. >> > >> >And I'm surprised at your cheap shot here. Well not really, you've >> >clearly lost any objectivity on the subject. >> > >> >Do you believe that Kaplan was attempting to direct Kay's bidding >> >or defence. If you do, you really ought not to hide behind >> >innuendo. If you don't, why bring it up? >> >> Jesper stated that this was because of partner being a novice. You >> may assume what you like if you are not going to read earlier articles. > >Jesper didn't bring up Norman Kay. You did. You're being disingenuos >here. > >Yes Norman Kay was specificly mentioned in Kaplan's article. >If Jesper made any reference to it, I missed it. Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:17:06 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: > >> I just would not want to play bridge with people who consider it legal >>to direct partner's play and defence by such means. > >Neither do I. But helping a novice partner to understand what >goes on during the bidding in general - which is what I believe >this discussion is about - has nothing to do with "directing >partner's play and defence", and would IMO probably make a game >that includes a novice more pleasant for everybody. Note that Jesper said "which is what I believe this discussion is about". Are you telling me that this discussion does not concern Kaplan's views as expressed in an editorial? You have even referred to it just further down the page. OK, so I tried a different way to make a point, but surely we have been discussing Kaplan's view? >> I believe that Kaplan made a mistake in his ethical understanding of a >> situation. > >I doubt it. > >He specificly says in the editorial that he wrote the relevent >section. He may be presumed to know what his intent was. I am sorry, that does not seem to answer what I said. I did not say he did not know his intent: I said he had made a mistake. >> Of course he was trying to direct his partner's bidding: he >> was assuming that his partner would bid wrong if he did not communicate >> with him. > >Of course he wasn't. He had no idea what Kay would do with the >information. Direct has a meaning. That Kaplan had a plan that >he wished Kay to carry out. And you talk about me being disingenuous! >Do you agree that Kay was entitled to a full explanation of >the opposition sequence and that incomplete information might >lead to damage to Kaplan's side? I know you do with both >propositions. Of course I do, and there are Laws to cover what happens if he does not get them. Nowhere in those Laws is there any reference to the procedure being advocated in this thread. >According to the Lille interpretation he has no choice but >to accept the misinformation, the potential for damage >and the potential for an unfavorable ruling. > >As he mentions in the editorial it's quite plausable that a >committee would look on a failure to act as a double shot. >(Either a successful result or a successful protest is the >wording I believe.) Some people have very strong feelings >on what they perceive as double shots. >> >> >Kaplan was faced with a stupid situation. Inadequate disclosure >> >of an obscure area of system - and he knew it. >> > >> >He had other options than asking questions of course. But frankly >> >a procedure that guarantees a committee hearing when the >> >information matters (or worse - might have mattered) which can >> >be avoided by the asking of a question strikes me as deranged. >> >> So now you want to let players take the Law into their own hands, make >> their own decisions, and ignore the Laws, solely to avoid committee >> hearings? That is deranged. > >No, in fact I don't. Like it or not, the Lille interpretation >is the law now. > >But Kaplan was *not* breaking the Laws at the time. > >And while the Lille interpretation *is* currently binding, it's >hardly a given that it needs to be this way. > >Is there any reason that the current regulation could not be >re-written to permit the asking of questions to clear up >misinformation? As you realise, I believe it would be very bad for the game. >As with any questions the possibility of a ruling of UI simply >by asking the question would still be there. That's your >real objection isn't it? That the probability is there that >asking the question in and of itself transmits information >beyond the answers given. Perhaps that is so, but it is more than that - it is the control factor. I remember dummy asking pertinent facts at Brighton, and as a result declarer realised what he should be doing. I think this control of a person is awful, but it is not information per se. >You've mentioned several times on RGB that you believe that >there's a relationship between a player's hand and the probability >that he will ask questions. True, especially at low levels. It appears from what I am told that this is probably less so in the ACBL where people apparently ask questions more. As far as over here is concerned, I have seen this happening for the years I have been playing. Players with flat Yarboroughs do not ask questions. >As the laws are currently interpreted you need to investigate the >situation. If you find unauthorized information was passed and >acted upon you know as well as anyone how to deal with it. The argument then would be that it is AI he has received not UI. It is very difficult to get it right now that partner has made things clear to him. >> >In a sense it's moot now - at least at the top level. With >> >screens in place in almost all major expert games, the situation >> >won't arise. You simply have no idea what explanation your >> >partner is getting. >> > >> >And maybe the laws in this area should assume screens - or at >> >least assume screens in resolving the tricky points. >> >> Perhaps you should take the trouble to read David Burn's articles >> then, where he points out the effects on this problem of assuming >> screens. Or are you accusing him of paranoia too? > >Articles? I was only aware of one. If he's written more on the >subject, I'd be glad to read more. Are they collected at your site? No, and regrettably I do not keep articles very long. However, if you ask someone who keeps all the articles, which a few people do, I think you will find more than one article by David on this subject in this thread. >You'll note the maybe though. I'm aware that you can create a whole >suite of problems in attempting to solve a particular issue. I think the jury should still be out on this approach actually, but either we should accept it or not. Some quite strange situations get reduced to what would have happened with screens - and it sometimes seems irrelevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 14:27:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:27:23 +1100 (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 OAA21860 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:27:15 +1100 (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 11oIDx-000MIJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:27:05 +0000 Message-ID: <1kvNuaB0n1M4EwNC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:44:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <19991117005037.36679.qmail@hotmail.com> <199911171635.LAA18721@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <199911171635.LAA18721@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: >Michael Farebrother writes: > >Much good stuff which frankly articulates my position >better than I did. > >Please allow me to express regret for the tone of my posts >in this thread. It did nothing to advance the issue. > >In particular I regret the choice of the word paranoid >used to David Stevenson. And deranged (though I called >the procedure not any person. Still it wasn't neccessary.) If we can find some consensus as a result of all this then it will all be worth while. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 18 15:59:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:59:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:root@nowhere.fragment.com [207.239.226.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22031 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:59:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:jl8e@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nowhere.fragment.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA13411 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:59:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199911180459.XAA13411@nowhere.fragment.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: Message from David Stevenson of "Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:41:19 GMT." <8N1fEoAfysM4Ew+f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:59:27 -0500 From: Julian Lighton Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <8N1fEoAfysM4Ew+f@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes: > > > Perhaps it is time I tried an example. > > 1NT x xx ? > > You hold xxxx > xxx > xxx > xxx > > Oh dear! But the 1NT opener alerts! You ask, and he says it is >Aardvark, ie it forces 2C, showing a weak hand with a single suit. >Opener is forced to bid 2C, then responder will tell you his suit. > > You can see their CC, and you can see that they do not play Aardvark. >Still, the confusion might give you a chance of getting out of this >alive. Oppos are known to you as ethical players: how can you take >advantage? > > The bidding proceeds > > 1NT x xx[a] p > 2C p 2H ? > > Now, you want partner to pass this out, don't you? 2H is no doubt >forcing, and is probably going to be passed by opener, and you are >booked for a good board here - if only you can shut partner up! How can >you get him to pass? > > Easy peasy! Ask RHO what the 2C bid means. Since he is ethical, his >reply will make it clear that his xx was not Aardvark, and partner will >realise that it would be a good idea to shut up. UI does not matter: >LHO who is perfectly ethical will know he is required to pass 2H. > > Congratulations: you have just made sure that partner will pass, and >various people apparently consider the method legal. > > Do you? No. Nor do I think it should be. There is a significant difference between this and the generic "asking for partner" case. In this, I am using the question and answer to make sure partner knows something other than to the opponents' methods. Specifically, that they are having a misunderstanding. -- Julian Lighton jl8e@fragment.com Death, destruction, and plastic forks From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 16:30:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:30:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22067 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:30:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:30:07 -0800 Message-ID: <009801bf3185$fdf27540$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca><199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.1.32.19991117171036.0073d4e0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:23:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > Comments are invited on the following mental experiment: > > You are playing in a game with a relatively inexperienced, shy, partner, > and against familiar opponents. You hear the following auction: > > LHO P RHO You > 1H Dbl 2NT ? > > No alert to the 2nt bid, for whatever reason. You know the opponents play > Jordan, but are pretty sure that partner could not know this, and the > information could be important in subsequent developments. You consider > asking, but being a strict devotee of WBFLC interpretations, decide that > you cannot ask for partner's benefit. At this point, no problem. You know the answer, you don't ask the question. If partner makes some damaging bid or play based on hir belief that 2NT was natural, redress will be due. > > But as you think about it, you realize that you're not completely certain > about the opponents' agreement here. And after all, they didn't alert, so > maybe you are wrong. Maybe you _should_ ask, before leaping off to the 4S > bid you were considering. You ask for an explanation. > > Is your question legal/ethical? > Neither legal nor ethical, IMO. If they didn't Alert, then it isn't Jordan, but as an experienced player you will be expected to "protect yourself" by checking out your suspicion. Just look at the opposing CC, no need to ask a question that may help partner. If the red box isn't checked, then for sure it isn't Jordan. Even the most experienced player should not be expected to check three different ways. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 19:24:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:24:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from agomboc.drotposta.hu (agomboc.drotposta.hu [212.108.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22279 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:24:02 +1100 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by agomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 11oMr1-0000Bx-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:23:43 +0100 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:30:39 +0100 (MET DST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Withdrawal of concession Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe the TD should try to find out the reason of the wrong concession. IMO the key point is whether S was aware of the trump in W hand. If the TD decides the answer is yes, than all 3 tricks for NS. However if the TD suspects that S simply forgot the 6 of Sp than I would give a trick to EW as there is no reason to suppose that S would play the high trump first and the 7 Cl afterward. What do you think? Andras Booc, Hungary, Budapest martaandras@uze.net "Martin Sinot" 1999.11.17. 15:33:14 +1h-kor irta: > Consider the following endgame: > > S: KQ > H: - > D: - > C: 7 > S: 6 S: - > H: J10 H: 75 > D: - D: - > C: - C: 4 > S: - > H: 62 > D: - > C: 2 > > > South is declarer in a spade contract. West is > on lead and plays the HJ. South now says: "One trick > for you." Everybody agrees. While writing down the score > South wakes up and calls the TD, saying that he simply > has the rest. Now what? > > Martin Sinot > martin@spase.nl > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 21:05:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:05:07 +1100 (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 VAA22432 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:04:59 +1100 (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 ESMTP id LAA14925 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:04:31 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199911181004.LAA14925@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:04:05 +0100 Subject: Bad score by MI, or what? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From a club game the other day: Dealer: West North-South vulnerable Pairs game KJ75 3 J9874 K85 4 3 AKT8 QJ7542 AKQ2 65 A763 QJT9 AQT9862 96 T3 42 West North East South 2D(1) pass 2S(2) 3H(3) D(4) pass pass 3S D(5) all pass (1) Alert - multi: weak two in a major, 23-24 HCP balanced or 20-22 HCP with any 4441 (2) Alert - offering heart fit opposite weak two. (3) By agreement a transfer to spades, indicated on CC. No alert. (4) Alert - by agreement one of the two strong versions. (5) No alert, upon request explained as 'business'. Four tricks is all there is for EW, who have 11 tricks in a heart game. How do you rule? For instance, is it reasonable that EW, despite their sub-optimal (to put it mildly) bidding, get a bad score from a situation they would not have been in without NS's infraction? Thanks for comments, JP From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 21:12:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:12:49 +1100 (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 VAA22452 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:12:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va057819 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 20:09:58 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-36.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.36]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Conquering-MailRouter V2.6a 13/237564); 18 Nov 1999 20:09:57 Message-ID: <01db01bf324c$33525400$245e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:09:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > > 1NT x xx ? > > You hold xxxx > xxx > xxx > xxx > > Oh dear! But the 1NT opener alerts! You ask, and he says it is >Aardvark, ie it forces 2C, showing a weak hand with a single suit. >Opener is forced to bid 2C, then responder will tell you his suit. > > You can see their CC, and you can see that they do not play Aardvark. >Still, the confusion might give you a chance of getting out of this >alive. Oppos are known to you as ethical players: how can you take >advantage? > > The bidding proceeds > > 1NT x xx[a] p > 2C p 2H ? > > Now, you want partner to pass this out, don't you? 2H is no doubt >forcing, and is probably going to be passed by opener, and you are >booked for a good board here - if only you can shut partner up! How can >you get him to pass? > > Easy peasy! Ask RHO what the 2C bid means. Since he is ethical, his >reply will make it clear that his xx was not Aardvark, and partner will >realise that it would be a good idea to shut up. UI does not matter: >LHO who is perfectly ethical will know he is required to pass 2H. > > Congratulations: you have just made sure that partner will pass, and >various people apparently consider the method legal. > > Do you? > Not me. With my cards, any action other than *pass in tempo* is unthinkable. As well as L73B1, I think it is an infraction under L73D1 too, using a liberal interpretation of the words *unvarying manner*: "players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side." In the Scope of the Laws (English Version), it says that failure to do something a player "should" do is an infraction. Summarising my opinion, it contravenes one Law about questioning and another Law about the manner of your *pass*. Also, if partner passes out 2H with a strong hand, I think L16 might be applied. In such a case, is it appropriate for the TD to examine my yarborough at the end of the hand in order to make his ruling? Pardon my ignorance about the following matters, but I doubt if I'm the only ignorant one on BLML... When Kaplan wrote the article way back at the start of this thread, the Proprieties weren't Laws, were they? Did the Proprieties became Laws in 1987 or 1975? So Kaplan's view AT THE TIME OF WRITING was at most improper, not illegal? Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 21:40:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:40:47 +1100 (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 VAA22644 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:40:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11oOzA-0009rn-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:40:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:58:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Withdrawal of concession References: <00d401bf3152$c9779580$0ccef1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <00d401bf3152$c9779580$0ccef1c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <00d401bf3152$c9779580$0ccef1c3@default>, Jac Fuchs writes > Laval Dubreuil wrote: > > > >   Consider the following endgame: > > > >               S: KQ > >               H: - > >               D: - > >               C: 7 > >   S: 6                     S: - > >   H: J10                   H: 75 > >   D: -                     D: - > >   C: -                     C: 4 > >               S: - > >               H: 62 > >               D: - > >               C: 2 > > > > > >   South is declarer in a spade contract. West is > >   on lead and plays the HJ. South now says: "One trick > >   for you." Everybody agrees. While writing down the score > >   South wakes up and calls the TD, saying that he simply > >   has the rest. Now what? > > > >   Martin Sinot > >   martin@spase.nl > >   [Laval Dubreuil] > >   Law 71C: Until the conceding side makes a call on a > >   subsequent board, or until round ends, the TD shall > >   cancel the concession of a trick that could not have > >   been lost by any normal play of the renaining cards. > > > >   The only logical reason why S conceeded a trick is > >   he did not realise his C7 was good. No problem with > >   the remaining S; he can ruff high. Then the only normal > >   play on HJ is to ruff in dummy, get the remaining S and > >   play C7. I would tend to rule "no trick to E-W". > > > >   But things are never so simple with these Laws. If S > >   go on playing on HJ, he can discard this "no good" C7 > >   from dummy, saying "I give you this trick and take the > >   rest". It is a "normal" play if he did not see that this C7 > >   is a trick. He can also ruff HJ and play C7 having forget > >   the outstanding trump... > > > >   What now ?  No answer without the "table feeling", > >   but I still tend to rule "no trick to E-W" > > > >   Laval Du Breuil > >   Quebec City > > > I disagree. IMO you quote the appropriate Law, but are too lenient > to South. > Clearly, at the moment of the claim he had no idea what the > remaining cards > were. This makes both the discarding of the "losing" club and > ruffing but > playing the losing club before the remaining trump "normal" plays > for > South - it apparently took him some time to realise that he had > gone wrong, > according to Martin's description of the case. L71C then forbids us > to > cancel the concession of the trick. > > Jac I agree - a player who concedes thought the Club was a loser - to all intents and purposes he is here discarding his "winner" on the current trick - if he does not know it is a winner (and he has told us so by his concession) it is not irrational to throw it away. EW one trick mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 21:40:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:40:43 +1100 (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 VAA22643 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:40:30 +1100 (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 11oOz9-0005dx-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:40:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:05:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Was Asking for Partner's benefit: now discussion of procedure. References: <002a01bf30dc$60f6f940$455108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <002a01bf30dc$60f6f940$455108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002a01bf30dc$60f6f940$455108c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott writes > > >Grattan---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- >"More honoured in the breach than the observance" > - 'Hamlet' >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 17 November 1999 04:03 >Subject: Re: Fw: Asking For Partner's Benefit > > >>Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> The presumptions that [a] only one particular group of law-makers are >>suitable to interpret the Laws and they happen to be the same group that >>has the skills to write them in the first place and [b] that particular >>group will have so little respect for all the other suitable people >>around the world that they would take their ball back if anyone >>disagreed is just not believable. >> >> I believe the current setup to be flawed. Hopefully it will improve, >>but it is very far from perfect. Having a separate body to interpret >>and explain the Laws would be a good first step. >> >+=+ One misapprehension concerns the role of the >WBFLC. This is set up to establish the rules by >which the game is to be played. This means to >determine not merely the wording of the laws - >that comes second to making the decisions as to >what the effect of those laws is to be (always >subject to the approval of the WBF Executive). For >this reason any deviation from the intention has to >be corrected. As they are, the committee's >procedures for this are ponderous and too slow >for the modern world; however, under discussion >in Bermuda will be two proposals: > 1. A 'rolling' review of the laws, constantly >in progress, with more frequent adjustments >of them. This is a Blaiss/Endicott joint >suggestion. It offers the thought of a one or >two (or none) of the laws updated in alternate >years, with discussion in the year between. > 2. A streamlined procedure for issuing >agreed interpretations of the law with binding >authority. The real danger here is that if they make the same sort of pig's ear (or should that be a dog's breakfast??) that they did at Lille then we'll only be even more in the soup If you are going to change the Laws (or issue agreed interpretations of the law with binding authority) then for heaven's sake (blasphemy deleted) make sure that what you say is what you mean, we all know what you say and what you mean and that we end up with a law that we can sensibly apply at the table >One aim could be to reduce the >length of time taken to make decisions where >it is felt that incorrect opinions are circulating. >I note that Kojak wishes to pursue this, and I >support his opinion that a better and swifter >procedure is needed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 22:03:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:03:05 +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 WAA22723 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:02:52 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 6210 invoked from network); 18 Nov 1999 10:41:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.173) by jaguars with SMTP; 18 Nov 1999 10:41:38 -0000 Message-ID: <3833D8FD.88CFCEC@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:46:21 +0000 From: masterit Reply-To: masterit@cableinet.co.uk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca><199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.1.32.19991117134712.006a6a58@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > More recently, I claimed, he made his usual objection, and I called the TD. > He complained to the TD that he couldn't see from my hand, the dummy, and > his hand, how the play would proceed (I should note that though I always > try to include a complete line of play with my claims, he rarely lets me > finish stating it before he objects). As it seemed obvious to me (and I > think to everybody else) I concluded, perhaps unfairly, that he has some > kind of disability that makes it difficult for him to work it out (there's > other evidence that leads me to that conclusion, btw), and resolved to try > to remember never to claim against him, even when I have nothing but top > trumps left in my hand. But the damage is done - I am "arrogant." I don't > know what to do about that. :-) > > Regards, > > Ed > this attitude used to be common in my area but gradually through education more and more claimers called the td when asked to play it out until nowadays it is hardly heard of. i claimed once (some years ago) saying " i'm taking the trump ace, you can have the rest........"play it out" came the response. lnb From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 22:05:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:05:51 +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 WAA22754 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:05:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-217.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.217]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12564 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:05:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3832C850.CBCD5E24@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:22:56 +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: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991117084500.006a1eb4@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > My last paragraph (cited above) was not intended to contribute further to > the theoretical dispute. What I meant to suggest was that, based on my > experience in the circles I play in, had N fully clarified the position he > was in, W would have been satisfied that N had revealed everything he knew > in a genuine attempt to be helpful, and so would not have called the TD. > Perhaps he still would have been theoretically entitled to, and perhaps he > would have, and perhaps the AC would have awarded him an adjustment, but, > if so, he would have wound up wearing the dreaded "bridge lawyer" tag in > front of his peers. > Well, as long as everyone is being accused of BL-ing when simply calling for the director, there is still something wrong with our game. > Hair-splitting on BLML notwithstanding, in real life, laws and > interpretations that result in fewer director calls and fewer AC sessions > are to be preferred. I agree. > The drawback to Herman's position, in real life, is > that well-meaning opponents in "full disclosure" situations want, expect, > and are generally satisfied with exactly that -- full disclosure -- and > expect redress when their opponents conceal facts of which they are aware, > whatever the finely-tuned legalities might dictate. > I'm not certain what you are trying to ascribe to me here, or where the drawback is. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 22:05:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:05:42 +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 WAA22750 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:05:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-217.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.217]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA12549 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:05:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3832C7A8.D4252BDC@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:20:08 +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: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please Ed, read everything : Ed Reppert wrote: > > > Herman De Wael writes: > > >My point is that, by the footnote, the TD will have to rule > >as if the intention of the bidder IS the agreement. So > >unless they can prove otherwise, this is what should have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >been told to the opponents, and if it wsn't, then that is > >MI. > > I have a problem with the scenario where one player mistakenly makes a bid, > intending it to mean A, when the partnership has not agreed that meaning, > and B is asked what the bid means. If their agreement is B, or they haven't > discussed it, but have a general rule that it would be B in this situation, > and it is explained as B, then opps have been given a correct explanation. > It is NOT MI, no matter what the TD rules. > "Unless they can proe otherwise". I know this, and I apply it. But my point is on cases whete they cannot prove this. OK ? > >Please understand me very well, I am not saying that this IS > >their agreement, I am saying that the TD will rule as if it > >is. > > So he will. I understand. However, having grown up under a rule of law that > one is innocent until proven guilty, I find putting the burden of proof on > the accused completely unpalatable, even in this context. So you prefer putting the burden of proof onto the party that received erroneous information (see, I'm not saying MI !). Of course the burden of proof should go on the pair that have misbid ! What else do you suggest ? > But if I have to > live with it, then - what constitutes proof? Is an entry on the CC > sufficient? Can I refer to this bridge book or that (for example, > Truscott's _The Bidding Dictionary_ for SA)? Must I carry around (not to > mention compiling) several hundred pages of system notes? Do my system > notes need to cover every possible bidding sequence? If I need all these > pages of notes, the game of bridge approaches a chore rather than a > pleasure - and that's not a good thing, IMO. > Well, then I suggest you never bid along undiscussed lines to begin with. Or never misexplain. Nobody is asking for a complete set of proofs to back-up your erroneous explanation. All we want is correct explanations and score corrections if we are damaged by faulty ones. What's so bad with that ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 22:48:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:48:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f50.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA22917 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:48:29 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 14770 invoked by uid 0); 18 Nov 1999 11:48:01 -0000 Message-ID: <19991118114801.14769.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:48:01 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The ize have it (off topic and missing the point as usual) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:48:01 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >It is correct in English English (and automatic in American English) >when forming a verb from an adjective or a noun to use the suffix "-ize" >rather >than "-ise". (See Partridge and other eminent authorities rather than take >my word for this.) I quite agree (which is, I am sure, a relief to the publishers of Usage and Abusage). It's very common, however, to use -ise now and regard it as 'correct'. Does any one other than me use the spelling 'connexion'? I think I'm just posing by using it, but am probably correct nonetheless. Which might come as a bit of a surprize. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 18 23:33:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 23:33:29 +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 XAA23024 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 23:33:19 +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 11oQkJ-000D7A-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:33:03 +0000 Message-ID: <3SsmgMAl1+M4Ew+i@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:13:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Withdrawal of concession References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Andras wrote: >I believe the TD should try to find out the reason of the wrong concession. >IMO the key point is whether S was aware of the trump in W hand. >If the TD decides the answer is yes, than all 3 tricks for NS. >However if the TD suspects that S simply forgot the 6 of Sp >than I would give a trick to EW as there is no reason to suppose >that S would play the high trump first and the 7 Cl afterward. > >What do you think? As a matter of Law, is this the right approach? The suggestion here is that in effect we are to treat this as a contested claim - but it isn't. According to L71C, we cancel a concession if there is no normal play of the remaining cards that loses the trick. That judgement does not depend on what declarer thought, surely? On this hand we just have to decide whether any normal [=careless or inferior, but not irrational] play allows a trick to be lost. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 18 23:47:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 23:47:41 +1100 (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 XAA23044 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 23:47:33 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id 1.0.1b0dca12 (4309); Thu, 18 Nov 1999 07:46:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.1b0dca12.25654f39@aol.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 07:46:49 EST Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/18/99 5:23:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, GillP@bigpond.com writes: > When Kaplan wrote the article way back at the start of this thread, the > Proprieties weren't Laws, were they? > Did the Proprieties became Laws in 1987 or 1975? > So Kaplan's view AT THE TIME OF WRITING was at most improper, > not illegal? > > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia. My copy of the 1987 Laws says in the preface: "...Another significant change is the incorporation of the Proprieties into the Laws proper....." Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 00:52:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:20:39 +1100 (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 AAA23174 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:20:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-233.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.233]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA25362 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:20:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3833E700.C0DFC00@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:46:08 +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: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911180459.XAA13411@nowhere.fragment.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Julian Lighton wrote: > > > > > Do you? > > No. Nor do I think it should be. There is a significant difference > between this and the generic "asking for partner" case. In this, I am > using the question and answer to make sure partner knows something > other than to the opponents' methods. Specifically, that they are > having a misunderstanding. > Which is a piece of information neither you, nor your partner is entitled to. You have the information, because you checked the CC, and it is AI for you, but you are not allowed to transfer that info to partner. And RHO is not obliged to give you the information either, and on top of it all, he is forbidden to say it because of L75D2. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 01:42:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 01:42:57 +1100 (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 BAA23445 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 01:42:49 +1100 (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 JAA20354 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:43:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991118094357.00706028@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:43:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991117134712.006a6a58@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:08 PM 11/17/99 +0000, John wrote: >I have huge sympathy with this position, Eric. I think the problem lies >in the fact that if we allow this one, where do we scratch the mark and >what else do we allow/ not allow. As I said before playing with my son >Stephen can be very frustrating, when he doesn't ask. I live with it. Quite so. To attempt to make my (and my opponents') actions in my hypothetical scenario legal would require drawing some arbitrary line between "for partner's benefit" questions which are legal and those which are not, which would be difficult if not impossible to do and would merely provide additional fodder for the BLs and loss of sleep for ACs. My hypothetical actions are, and should remain, illegal. My heretical, perhaps deranged, notion is that there are times when common sense forces us to recognize a distinction between what should be legal and what should be allowed. There are circumstances under which it might be ethical, sportsmanlike, and, ultimately, good for the game to take a bit of liberty with the letter of the law. In my scenario, my opponents committed a minor technical infraction (they gave MI, but in a form that would have caused no possible harm or problem had my partner been as experienced as they assumed him to be). Both sides were agreeable to resolving the MI problem between ourselves at the table, albeit that in doing so both sides were knowingly and deliberately violating the law. Our "criminal" purpose was to avoid getting the TD and AC involved in a situation in which we both knew what the sensible outcome should be. Nobody other than the personification of the law in its majesty suffered any harm thereby. Equity was clearly served (my partner got to bid and play with the full information to which he was entitled). And we succeeded in avoiding a committee hearing, in making the game pleasanter and friendlier for everyone involved (not to mention everyone who might otherwise had been involved, including TDs, AC members, and those unfortunates with matters of considerably more substance who would have been waiting at 1:00 AM for their turn in the committee room while our matter was being litigated), and in avoiding any potential ill will between us in the future. Some might argue that we need better player education to cure the benighted attitude that resolving such issues in committee hearings has any negative impact on pleasantness, friendliness or good will between the parties involved, but IMO those folks are living in a such dream world as to be genuinely deserving of being labeled "deranged". I am reminded of a labor dispute that took place some years ago between Nassau County NY and the local policemen's union. Because the law does not allow police to go out on strike, the union instead instructed its members simply to be particularly assiduous in doing their jobs of enforcing the law. The police proceeded to stop and ticket every driver who they saw violating the speed limit or committing any other traffic infraction. Traffic came to a complete standstill, the county was in chaos, millions of Long Island commuters failed to reach their jobs in New York City, thousands of businesses couldn't open or operate, and the county capitulated within hours. 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 Nov 19 01:46:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 01:46:28 +1100 (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 BAA23469 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 01:46:19 +1100 (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 JAA01909; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:44:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA134626272; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:44:32 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA138336271; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:44:31 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:44:12 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Withdrawal of concession Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk, 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 BAA23471 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Laval Dubreuil] This is what I meant in my previous message when writing "no answer without the table feeling" ie without more information on this concession by S (Was he aware of an outstanding trump ? What about C? etc...). You have to be at table to realy know what happened and it is normally quite easy to know the truth and decide on facts (as TD must do before applying any Law). Andras wrote: >I believe the TD should try to find out the reason of the wrong concession. >IMO the key point is whether S was aware of the trump in W hand. >If the TD decides the answer is yes, than all 3 tricks for NS. >However if the TD suspects that S simply forgot the 6 of Sp >than I would give a trick to EW as there is no reason to suppose >that S would play the high trump first and the 7 Cl afterward. > >What do you think? As a matter of Law, is this the right approach? The suggestion here is that in effect we are to treat this as a contested claim - but it isn't. According to L71C, we cancel a concession if there is no normal play of the remaining cards that loses the trick. That judgement does not depend on what declarer thought, surely? On this hand we just have to decide whether any normal [=careless or inferior, but not irrational] play allows a trick to be lost. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 19 01:57:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:20:40 +1100 (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 AAA23176 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:20:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-233.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.233]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA25366 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:20:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3833E859.625CD660@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:51:53 +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: Withdrawal of concession References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > > [Laval Dubreuil] > Law 71C: Until the conceding side makes a call on a > subsequent board, or until round ends, the TD shall > cancel the concession of a trick that could not have > been lost by any normal play of the renaining cards. > > The only logical reason why S conceeded a trick is > he did not realise his C7 was good. No problem with of course ! > the remaining S; he can ruff high. Then the only normal > play on HJ is to ruff in dummy, get the remaining S and > play C7. I would tend to rule "no trick to E-W". > > But things are never so simple with these Laws. If S > go on playing on HJ, he can discard this "no good" C7 > from dummy, saying "I give you this trick and take the > rest". It is a "normal" play if he did not see that this C7 > is a trick. He can also ruff HJ and play C7 having forget > the outstanding trump... > > What now ? No answer without the "table feeling", > but I still tend to rule "no trick to E-W" > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > How about throwing the club seven on this trick and win the last two ? I rule concession stands. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 01:58:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:20:36 +1100 (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 AAA23171 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:20:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-233.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.233]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA25349 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:20:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3833E1DA.4136DBC1@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:24:10 +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: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.1.32.19991117171036.0073d4e0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > Comments are invited on the following mental experiment: > > You are playing in a game with a relatively inexperienced, shy, partner, > and against familiar opponents. You hear the following auction: > > LHO P RHO You > 1H Dbl 2NT ? > > No alert to the 2nt bid, for whatever reason. You know the opponents play > Jordan, but are pretty sure that partner could not know this, and the > information could be important in subsequent developments. You consider > asking, but being a strict devotee of WBFLC interpretations, decide that > you cannot ask for partner's benefit. > correct. > But as you think about it, you realize that you're not completely certain > about the opponents' agreement here. And after all, they didn't alert, so > maybe you are wrong. Still not reason enough to ask. > Maybe you _should_ ask, before leaping off to the 4S > bid you were considering. You ask for an explanation. > Now you certainly are asking for your own benefit. Allowed. > Is your question legal/ethical? > > Mike Dennis I presume we are not discussing the merits of asking about a non-alerted call. A BL would pass and then be "surprised" to hear that 2NT promised hearts and ask his 4Sp contract from the TD. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 02:46:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:46:26 +1100 (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 CAA23791 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:46:18 +1100 (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, 18 Nov 1999 10:44:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3833E700.C0DFC00@village.uunet.be> References: <199911180459.XAA13411@nowhere.fragment.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:36:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:46 AM -0500 11/18/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >Julian Lighton wrote: >> >> > >> > Do you? >> >> No. Nor do I think it should be. There is a significant difference >> between this and the generic "asking for partner" case. In this, I am >> using the question and answer to make sure partner knows something >> other than to the opponents' methods. Specifically, that they are >> having a misunderstanding. >> > >Which is a piece of information neither you, nor your >partner is entitled to. You have the information, because >you checked the CC, and it is AI for you, but you are not >allowed to transfer that info to partner. >And RHO is not obliged to give you the information either, >and on top of it all, he is forbidden to say it because of >L75D2. I think your second sentence contradicts your first. :-) If it's AI, he's entitled to it. Agree he's not allowed to "transfer that info". The bit about RHO is interesting. Sitting in his seat, what do you expect him to do if he's asked? Refuse to answer? Even _that_ is likely to convey UI to his partner. 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/AwUBODQfQL2UW3au93vOEQJPVQCg8x9OwQamoXbTP7fgL/yC1PH27q4AoPFp HJBkRb82kJ341DTy5V1GQlM/ =vsdW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 02:48:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:20:38 +1100 (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 AAA23173 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:20:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-233.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.233]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA25357 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:20:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3833E3CB.79BD756D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:32:27 +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: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> <004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991117100023.0068fd18@pop.cais.com> <8N1fEoAfysM4Ew+f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Perhaps it is time I tried an example. > > 1NT x xx ? > > You hold xxxx > xxx > xxx > xxx > > Oh dear! But the 1NT opener alerts! You ask, and he says it is > Aardvark, ie it forces 2C, showing a weak hand with a single suit. > Opener is forced to bid 2C, then responder will tell you his suit. > Is aardvark the real name for this convention, or have you made that up? Either way, someone was looking to be first in the encyclopaedia. > You can see their CC, and you can see that they do not play Aardvark. > Still, the confusion might give you a chance of getting out of this > alive. Oppos are known to you as ethical players: how can you take > advantage? > > The bidding proceeds > > 1NT x xx[a] p > 2C p 2H ? > > Now, you want partner to pass this out, don't you? 2H is no doubt > forcing, and is probably going to be passed by opener, and you are > booked for a good board here - if only you can shut partner up! How can > you get him to pass? > > Easy peasy! Ask RHO what the 2C bid means. Since he is ethical, his > reply will make it clear that his xx was not Aardvark, and partner will > realise that it would be a good idea to shut up. UI does not matter: > LHO who is perfectly ethical will know he is required to pass 2H. > One snag : if RHO is a member of the dWs, he will answer "Aardvark - forcing reply", since he is bound by L75D2 not to "indicate in any manner that partner has explained wrong". Your partner is none the wiser. > Congratulations: you have just made sure that partner will pass, and > various people apparently consider the method legal. > FWIW, I do not consider it legal. You were only asking for partner's benefit, and you were trying to have opponents give UI to one another, something which they are not obliged to do. > Do you? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 02:55:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:55:55 +1100 (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 CAA23841 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:55:47 +1100 (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, 18 Nov 1999 10:53:47 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> <38302829.41F1A63A@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:46:35 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:49 PM -0500 11/16/99, David Stevenson wrote: > Surely you have grown up under a rule of law where one is innocent >until proven guilty when accused of a felony or the like by the >authorities? But surely, in civil cases, where there is a court acting >as an arbiter between two parties, proof is not required? Proof is still required, but as someone pointed out, the standard is different ("preponderance of the evidence", rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"). > When there is a C&E hearing you have the equivalent of a criminal >court. When a TD or AC gives a ruling you have the equivalent of a >civil case because they are acting as arbiter between two sides. I suppose I have to agree - but it doesn't _feel_ that way. :-) 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/AwUBODQhd72UW3au93vOEQL19gCgzXpATslRG4m3F1Beia9l/ryCeIIAnjY2 bSET9kpBmPHlKKMyUpufKxAv =vCPF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 03:06:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:06:51 +1100 (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 DAA23878 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:06:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:58:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001f01bf310a$eb966800$b2ac93c3@pacific> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:02:30 -0500 To: From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:47 AM -0500 11/17/99, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ This does not exactly fit what I was >intending to say. It *is* the case that when >we sit down to play we agree to play by >the rules as they are - i.e. according to >their authorized meaning. I did not wish >to say that the player would think them >fair etc., but only that the opinion is >not relevant to the application of the rules >as provided in the Conditions of Contest. Can't disagree with this. :-) >As they say, if you can't stand the heat, >stay out of the kitchen, since for the >purposes of the competition their effects >are by definition 'fair' (and so 'not material' >- sic - ). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This, OTOH... as Mr. Lincoln said, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. The rules are what they are, and one agrees to play under them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're fair, or that one must agree that they are. 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/AwUBODQkCb2UW3au93vOEQL23ACggEM/5eJgqeQ4xbxUfdAwri8TjbwAoM0q 3lBw9vkReQ27aUHZVwtJxK8x =GLcd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 03:45:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:45:21 +1100 (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 DAA24015 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:45:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:37:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3832C7A8.D4252BDC@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:25:02 -0500 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:20 AM -0500 11/17/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >Please Ed, read everything : I do. I don't always understand everything I read, though. That's why I'm here - trying to learn. :-) >Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> >> Herman De Wael writes: >> >> >My point is that, by the footnote, the TD will have to rule >> >as if the intention of the bidder IS the agreement. So >> >unless they can prove otherwise, this is what should have > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> >been told to the opponents, and if it wsn't, then that is >> >MI. >> >> I have a problem with the scenario where one player mistakenly makes a bid, >> intending it to mean A, when the partnership has not agreed that meaning, >> and B is asked what the bid means. If their agreement is B, or they haven't >> discussed it, but have a general rule that it would be B in this situation, >> and it is explained as B, then opps have been given a correct explanation. >> It is NOT MI, no matter what the TD rules. >> > >"Unless they can proe otherwise". > >I know this, and I apply it. > >But my point is on cases whete they cannot prove this. > >OK ? Okay. But you still haven't answered my question - what constitutes proof? (See below.) >> >Please understand me very well, I am not saying that this IS >> >their agreement, I am saying that the TD will rule as if it >> >is. >> >> So he will. I understand. However, having grown up under a rule of law that >> one is innocent until proven guilty, I find putting the burden of proof on >> the accused completely unpalatable, even in this context. > >So you prefer putting the burden of proof onto the party >that received erroneous information (see, I'm not saying MI >!). >Of course the burden of proof should go on the pair that >have misbid ! > >What else do you suggest ? It has been pointed out to me that this situation is more akin to a civil case than a criminal one. So the standard is "preponderance of the evidence," and _both_ sides can present evidence in support of their position. I suppose it is sufficient for the non-offenders that the laws require the TD to assume MI rather than misbid, so I guess I have to agree that the side which made the explanation must prove that's their agreement. >> But if I have to >> live with it, then - what constitutes proof? Is an entry on the CC >> sufficient? Can I refer to this bridge book or that (for example, >> Truscott's _The Bidding Dictionary_ for SA)? Must I carry around (not to >> mention compiling) several hundred pages of system notes? Do my system >> notes need to cover every possible bidding sequence? If I need all these >> pages of notes, the game of bridge approaches a chore rather than a >> pleasure - and that's not a good thing, IMO. >> > >Well, then I suggest you never bid along undiscussed lines >to begin with. >Or never misexplain. You're asking me - asking all bridge players - to be perfect. Ain't gonna happen, and you know it. We're all human (well, GIB isn't, but leave that aside :), and we all make mistakes from time to time. >Nobody is asking for a complete set of proofs to back-up >your erroneous explanation. All we want is correct >explanations and score corrections if we are damaged by >faulty ones. What's so bad with that ? My point was that the explanation is _not_ erroneous. I just don't have at hand whatever it is you require as proof. So, again, what is that? A completed CC? _Two_ (presumably identical) CCs? (The ACBL CC is notoriously lacking in space to explain any convention that can't be explained completely by checking a box or two - which IMO is all of them.) System notes? (I rarely bring my system notes to the table - should I change that?) I'm not trying to be a gadfly here - I'm trying to understand how best to deal with this law. 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/AwUBODQtC72UW3au93vOEQJkpgCfYhn0Jv0x/WpWndjNDUfv9+GjNRoAoMbO gWvme5CfCkmaQUX6uVrl+wVv =IOAP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 03:48:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:56:19 +1100 (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 CAA23856 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:56:10 +1100 (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; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:54:03 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1X8yODQrdxgdNU8vSQzWocFpSW=4@4ax.com> References: <000f01bf30d8$07cce180$455108c3@swhki5i6> <000f01bf30d8$07cce180$455108c3@swhki5i6> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:50:53 -0500 To: Brian Meadows From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:46 AM -0500 11/17/99, Brian Meadows wrote: >It's entirely possible that >a player believes one or more of the rules objectionable, or >even unfair, (and has a right to express that opinion!) but >that their desire to play bridge overrides those objections. Yep. >What is the alternative - to say that if you disagree with >any of the Rules, you must give up playing bridge, at least >under any WBF-related authority, unless and until that rule >is changed? Not a desirable solution from anyone's point of >view, I would have thought. No, it isn't. There are all kinds of (IMO) objectionable laws in this country. Doesn't mean the solution is to go elsewhere. The solution is to try to get the laws changed. (Again, just MO.) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBODQhgr2UW3au93vOEQLy1wCfZiCOywu+aewuu7036INlU0qm6S0Anibj pgz0rRDfilMFGRNnTBhDxo2I =Tj+d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 03:50:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:50:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24043 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:50:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from p9ds13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.158] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11oUkb-0003wb-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:49:37 -0800 Message-ID: <00ba01bf31e4$bd748da0$9e8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Was Asking for Partner's benefit: now discussion of procedure. Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:40:01 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 November 1999 15:57 Subject: Re: Was Asking for Partner's benefit: now discussion of procedure. >On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:15:18 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: > >>. As they are, the committee's >>procedures for this are ponderous and too slow >>for the modern world; however, under discussion >>in Bermuda will be two proposals: > >I am glad to hear that he procedure is under consideration. > +=+ Premature joy perhaps; no guarantee that putting it on the agenda will persuade people to consider a change from ancient philosophies designed for a more sedate age. All too easy to bury heads in the sand. +=+ > >I think (1) is a very good idea, and that (2) should be kept to a >minimum. > >I think that real laws changes are the only way to get rid of >discussions about exactly how binding an "interpretation of the >law with binding authority" is. +=+ I regard any such discussions as beating the air. Each NCBO is in a contractual relationship with the WBF to fulfil its undertaking to conform to the WBF By-Laws and these expressly say that the WBFLC "shall interpret" the laws. The 'shall' is worthy of note. Where I am headed, if the WBFLC will come with, is in the direction of setting up an intra-committee system of consultation antecedent to publication of a binding statement of the law and its effect, subject by subject as it arises. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 03:50:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:50:21 +1100 (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 DAA24048 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:50:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from p9ds13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.158] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11oUka-0003wb-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:49:36 -0800 Message-ID: <00b901bf31e4$bcb44ae0$9e8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael S. Dennis" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:34:33 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: Michael S. Dennis Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 18 November 1999 02:12 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >> >Hm. There's another aspect of this: opponents have provided an inadequate >explanation. Presumably they aren't aware they have done so. > +=+ Or suppose they HAVE given a full explanation and HE is the one who is wrong? Could he be alerting partner to his own position by intervening? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 04:24:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:24:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24153 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:24:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:23:53 -0800 Message-ID: <00d401bf31e9$9c5f5e60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <19991118114801.14769.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: The ize have it (off topic and missing the point as usual) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:22:58 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Norman Scorbie wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > >It is correct in English English (and automatic in American English) > >when forming a verb from an adjective or a noun to use the suffix "-ize" > >rather > >than "-ise". (See Partridge and other eminent authorities rather than take > >my word for this.) > > I quite agree (which is, I am sure, a relief to the publishers of Usage and > Abusage). It's very common, however, to use -ise now and regard it as > 'correct'. Does any one other than me use the spelling 'connexion'? I think > I'm just posing by using it, but am probably correct nonetheless. Which > might come as a bit of a surprize. The word comes from the Latin *connexio," hence the English should be *connexion,* as it was originally. The spelling *connection* arose by analogy with such words as *collection*, etc. *Connexion* is now rare in the U. S., but frequent in England, says my dictionary. Over here use of the x spelling would be considered posing, but perhaps in England it merely shows a good education Whether BLML and rgb should be conducted in Englisch, or Americanisch, or both, was once an interesting thread on rgb, as I remember. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 04:26:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:26:42 +1100 (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 EAA24173 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:26:33 +1100 (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 MAA09516 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:26:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991118122742.00688088@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:27:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin In-Reply-To: <3832C850.CBCD5E24@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19991117084500.006a1eb4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:22 PM 11/17/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> My last paragraph (cited above) was not intended to contribute further to >> the theoretical dispute. What I meant to suggest was that, based on my >> experience in the circles I play in, had N fully clarified the position he >> was in, W would have been satisfied that N had revealed everything he knew >> in a genuine attempt to be helpful, and so would not have called the TD. >> Perhaps he still would have been theoretically entitled to, and perhaps he >> would have, and perhaps the AC would have awarded him an adjustment, but, >> if so, he would have wound up wearing the dreaded "bridge lawyer" tag in >> front of his peers. > >Well, as long as everyone is being accused of BL-ing when >simply calling for the director, there is still something >wrong with our game. It seems a bit unfair of Herman to suggest that I was saying than anyone who calls the director is BL-ing. I was, of course, talking about a very specific set of circumstances. You ask an opponent to describe his partnership's agreement about his partner's call. He is totally forthcoming in his reply. His answer is entirely truthful. He tells you everything he knows that might be relevant to his own interpretation of the call. However, when his partner's hand is revealed, you discover that he has, despite all this, committed a technical MI infraction, and call the TD asking redress for any damage that may have resulted from your having been "misinformed". Rightly or wrongly, there are a whole lot of folks out there who will consider this to be BL-ing in its most pejorative sense. >> Hair-splitting on BLML notwithstanding, in real life, laws and >> interpretations that result in fewer director calls and fewer AC sessions >> are to be preferred. > >I agree. > >> The drawback to Herman's position, in real life, is >> that well-meaning opponents in "full disclosure" situations want, expect, >> and are generally satisfied with exactly that -- full disclosure -- and >> expect redress when their opponents conceal facts of which they are aware, >> whatever the finely-tuned legalities might dictate. > >I'm not certain what you are trying to ascribe to me here, >or where the drawback is. I am trying to ascribe to Herman the position that when your agreements are in reality ambiguous, so that there is known (to both you and your partner) uncertainty as to the meaning of the call, you should not reveal this, but should, rather, guess what partner hopes you will presume his call to mean, and tell the opponents that this is your partnership agreement. Even if to do so would be legally correct and proper, it is certainly not totally forthcoming, entirely truthful, or revealing of everything you know that might be relevant to your presumed interpretation. The side which opposes Herman's position believes that you should be as forthcoming, truthful and revealing as possible, even though to do so requires you to disclose the ambiguity of your agreements, your uncertainty as to what partner hopes your presumption of the meaning of his call will be, and, thus, your awareness of the possibility that your presumption might well turn out to be wrong. The drawback to Herman's position is that opponents who are not BLs, do not consider themselves BLs, and wish to avoid being labeled as BLs, are nevertheless likely (rightly or wrongly) to feel aggrieved and damaged by your failure to be entirely forthcoming, truthful and revealing, to believe (rightly or wrongly) that you have done something wrong and that they have been the victims of misinformation, and therefore to call the director and to be prepared to argue their claim before the AC, than they would be had you been so. It is thus a point in favor of accepting the opposing interpretation that to do so would lead to fewer director calls and fewer AC sessions. 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 Nov 19 04:48:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:44:29 +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 EAA24261 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 04:44:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-74.access.net.il [213.8.7.74] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06294; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:39:57 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38343A01.A32D7A9@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:40:17 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean Pierre Rocafort CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: claim revisited References: <3.0.1.32.19991117104837.0070e38c@pop.cais.com> <3832DA68.6B6142A6@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have a better idea........just to produce some other 234 e-mails : Declarer will play diamond to the 9..........let decide for 3 down Any reason against it ??? Dany La cucaracha , la cucaracha .....una <..> cracha !!! Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > Eric Landau a écrit : > > > > At 08:29 AM 11/17/99 +0100, Jean wrote: > > > > >How would you appreciate rationality in this one? > > > > > >Dealer:East, EW vulnerable, matchpoints > > > > > > 107 > > > J84 - 1S - 2C > > > A94 - 2S - 3D > > > AKJ107 - 3S - 4S > > > AQ6 9 - - - > > > Q1075 962 > > > Q105 KJ8732 > > > Q42 963 > > > KJ85432 > > > AK3 > > > 6 > > > 85 > > > > > >H7 lead, 4,2,A > > >C5, 4,A,3 > > >S10, 9,2,A > > >C2, K,6,8 > > >CJ, 9,S8,CQ > > >SK,6 > > > > > >At this point, declarer claims 12 tricks: "all mine". > > > > The only issue with respect to "rationality" here is whether, when E fails > > to follow to the SK, S will be allowed to "realize" that the SQ is still > > outstanding. But it is clear that S's intention is to discard the H3 on a > > good club, so it doesn't matter. Whether he plays for W to have the SQ or > > plays for there to be only 12 spades in the deck, he will still come to > > exactly 11 tricks. WTP? > > > > FWIW, if it did matter, I would allow him to "wake up" to the fact that W > > holds the SQ when E discards. > > The reference to rationality was this: > If South is pretty certain East will produce SQ under the K, so far as > to claim beforehand, would he only have looked at East's (dis)card had > not play ceased? > If South thinks he holds 7 cashing tricks after SK, might he not cash > them in any possible order? for example: HK, SJ (Oops!). > > JP Rocafort > > > > > 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 > > -- > ___________________________________________________ > 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 Nov 19 05:16:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:19:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.asn-linz.ac.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA23922 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:19:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at ([10.90.16.33]) by mail.asn-linz.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26290 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:16:59 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3834268C.2A6D5343@eduhi.at> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:17:16 +0100 From: Petrus Schuster X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [de] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca><199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.1.32.19991117171338.0073d4e0@pop.mindspring.com> <004c01bf3151$f490b720$fa34accf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > This thread is focussing on asking a question for the benefit of partner. > However, it is ignoring another possible route out of the dark. If you have > reason to believe MI has occurred, is this not an infraction? While it is > illegal for you to ask the question, it cannot be illegal, IMO, for you to > summon the TD and tell him (away from the table, if need be) that you > believe there has been MI. The TD can then make the determination, and get > a full explanation out, if needed, before partner has acted on the MI. Of > course, the TD call itself may awaken partner to the importance of being > aware of the opponent's auction, and is UI. However, in practice, this is > likely to matter only when there was no MI. > > L9A1. "Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an > irregularity during the auction, whether or not it his turn to call". > > The only irregularity specifically barred by Law that I can think of off of > the top of my head is MI by partner. > > So, is calling the TD to correct a possible MI infraction by the opponents > legal/ethical when partner will benefit from the corrected explanation? Or > do we have to bite our tongues and let the MI taint the board, so that the > result will later be decided by the TD/AC instead of the players? Do we > really want to start limiting the rights of the players to summon the TD > when they notice a possible infraction by the opponents? > > Hirsch Doesn't this get us to where it all started? A player has the right to ask (L20F) and the right to call the TD (L9A1).Either both of these rights are restricted by L73A1 or neither is. (Surely the call for the TD is not a call within the meaning of L73A1 :)) So to call the TD in a situation where the main/only purpose is to alert partner to the meaning of the opponents' auction is as (il)legal as asking a question to that effect. Hirsch rightly points out that it is UI for partner: does it not follow then that he is no longer entitled to know the meaning of the opponents' auction (or act on such knowledge) because the information was gained by illegal means? This does not really seem practicable. Petrus From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 05:34:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 05:34:10 +1100 (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 FAA24410 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 05:34:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-90.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.90]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA00537 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:33:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004201bf31f3$bf4be7e0$5a84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:35:49 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me see...west has a good heart suit and east had said he has hearts. Can he really believe that south ALSO has a heart suit...even after south runs to spades? He also knows that east's spades are inferior to his hearts and that he himself has but a singleton. He appears to have all the information that a proper alert would have given him and still opts for a penalty double of a presumptive good spade suit at green. The damage appears unrelated to the offense as far as west is concerned. East may be confused of course by the failure to alert...his partner could have a roman 2d short in hearts on this bidding and hold a spade stack. So his failure act over the double of 3h could be consequent to the failure to alert. Still with a heart 6 bagger and a partner who has promised at least 20HCP converting the double to penalty does not look bad even at this vulnerability. Partner probably expects him to pass the double if his hearts are substantial, and they are. The penalty double of 3S is so egregiously awful that I would think it breaks the chain of causality between the offence and the result. By this time the opponent has said in the bidding that he has spades. To double this for penalties with a singleton, knowing partner has something in hearts has to sound like the spade stack to east; his inaction here is due to west's bid rather than the failure to alert. Result stands for EW. PP(w) to NS for the failure to alert. Less certain about score adjustment...but tend to think not. What do others think? -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Jan Peter Pals To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, November 18, 1999 5:30 AM Subject: Bad score by MI, or what? >From a club game the other day: > >Dealer: West >North-South vulnerable >Pairs game > > KJ75 > 3 > J9874 > K85 >4 3 >AKT8 QJ7542 >AKQ2 65 >A763 QJT9 > AQT9862 > 96 > T3 > 42 > >West North East South >2D(1) pass 2S(2) 3H(3) >D(4) pass pass 3S >D(5) all pass > >(1) Alert - multi: weak two in a major, 23-24 HCP balanced or >20-22 HCP with any 4441 >(2) Alert - offering heart fit opposite weak two. >(3) By agreement a transfer to spades, indicated on CC. No alert. >(4) Alert - by agreement one of the two strong versions. >(5) No alert, upon request explained as 'business'. > >Four tricks is all there is for EW, who have 11 tricks in a heart >game. > >How do you rule? For instance, is it reasonable that EW, despite >their sub-optimal (to put it mildly) bidding, get a bad score from a >situation they would not have been in without NS's infraction? > >Thanks for comments, JP > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 05:35:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA24430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 05:35:38 +1100 (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 FAA24424 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 05:35:28 +1100 (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, 18 Nov 1999 13:33:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3833E3CB.79BD756D@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> <004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991117100023.0068fd18@pop.cais.com> <8N1fEoAfysM4Ew+f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:25:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:32 AM -0500 11/18/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >One snag : if RHO is a member of the dWs, he will answer >"Aardvark - forcing reply", since he is bound by L75D2 not >to "indicate in any manner that partner has explained >wrong". Your partner is none the wiser. And if one deliberately lies in one's explanation of the partnership agreement, what does that make one? What of Law 72B4, which says it's illegal to conceal an infraction? It seems to me that 75D2 is missing a word. It should read "may not _voluntarily_ indicate...". This would make it clear that when asked a question, 75D2 does not give one license to compound partner's misexplanation by lying. But I suppose that'll have to wait until the next revision of the laws. In the meantime, even in the absence of "voluntarily" it seems to me that the interpretation you propose is a step or six in the wrong direction. 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/AwUBODRG4r2UW3au93vOEQK4pwCgyxS+NkZoKijbtTXT6XdtgORehQUAoJbm PfanggmR6XlzLX91FDUCMjAJ =qqg1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 07:27:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:27:39 +1100 (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 HAA24633 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:27:31 +1100 (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 MAA15422 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:27:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA5945; 18 Nov 99 12:22:11 -0800 Date: 18 Nov 99 12:19:00 -0800 Message-Id: <199911181222.AA5945@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Discussion of Procedure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott } > } >I think (1) is a very good idea, and that (2) should be kept to a } >minimum. } > } >I think that real laws changes are the only way to get rid of } >discussions about exactly how binding an "interpretation of the } >law with binding authority" is. } } +=+ I regard any such discussions as beating the air. } Each NCBO is in a contractual relationship with } the WBF to fulfil its undertaking to conform to } the WBF By-Laws and these expressly say that } the WBFLC "shall interpret" the laws. The 'shall' } is worthy of note. } } Where I am headed, if the WBFLC will come with, } is in the direction of setting up an intra-committee } system of consultation antecedent to publication } of a binding statement of the law and its effect, } subject by subject as it arises. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ } Jesper is probably too polite to point out the intransigence of an organization that he cannot control, but I am not. Marvin French has published to this list various commentaries from the ACBL that (IMO) clearly indicate that their interpretation of the relationship between the ACBL and the WBF differs from Grattan's view. Whether the ACBL (as an NCBO) "is in a contractual relationship with the WBF to fulfil its undertaking to conform to the WBF By-Laws" is moot if the ACBL chooses not to accept the WBFLC's interpretation of the Laws and the WBF does not sanction the ACBL therefore. It is rather like Eric's previous example of 'work-to-rule' -- the conditions that occur are intolerable, are meant to be intolerable, and are meant to make one side or the other budge from their entrenched position. If -- unknown to me -- there are discussions underway to enable the ACBL to fulfil its proper role as a member in good standing of the WBF, well and good. If not, and if the WBF is unwilling to take action based on the intransigence and rank disobedience of a member NCBO, then what is the value of the WBFLC to those of us in ACBL-land? If the WBF is unwilling to require the ACBL to perform its contracted duties, perhaps on this side of the pond the FLB can be replaced by the FSB, The Suggestions of Bridge. -- Wally Farley Los Gatos, California {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 08:05:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA24704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:05:34 +1100 (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 IAA24699 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:05:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.71] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11oYj8-000Kwc-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:04:22 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bf3208$75274be0$475108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Peter Gill" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:02:20 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: GillP@bigpond.com ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 18 November 1999 13:05 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >In a message dated 11/18/99 5:23:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, >GillP@bigpond.com writes: > >> When Kaplan wrote the article way back at the start of this thread, the >> Proprieties weren't Laws, were they? >> Did the Proprieties became Laws in 1987 or 1975? >> So Kaplan's view AT THE TIME OF WRITING was at most improper, >> not illegal? >> >> Peter Gill >> Sydney Australia. > >My copy of the 1987 Laws says in the preface: "...Another significant change >is the incorporation of the Proprieties into the Laws proper....." > >Kojak > +=+ Oh, didn't I mention that? :-))) I must have been engrossed in the statement in the 1975 Law Book that says: "The object of the Proprieties is twofold: to familiarise players with the customs and etiquette of the game, generally accepted over a long period of years; and to enlighten those who might otherwise fail to realise when or how they are improperly conveying information to their partners - often a far more reprehensible offence than a violation of a law." Well, that's that, then! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 09:56:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA24954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:56:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24949 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:56:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:55:58 -0800 Message-ID: <001501bf3218$1865ec80$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004201bf31f3$bf4be7e0$5a84d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:54:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Let me see...west has a good heart suit and east had said he has hearts. Can > he really believe that south ALSO has a heart suit...even after south runs > to spades? He also knows that east's spades are inferior to his hearts and > that he himself has but a singleton. He appears to have all the information > that a proper alert would have given him and still opts for a penalty double > of a presumptive good spade suit at green. The damage appears unrelated to > the offense as far as west is concerned. East may be confused of course by > the failure to alert...his partner could have a roman 2d short in hearts on > this bidding and hold a spade stack. So his failure act over the double of > 3h could be consequent to the failure to alert. Still with a heart 6 bagger > and a partner who has promised at least 20HCP converting the double to > penalty does not look bad even at this vulnerability. Partner probably > expects him to pass the double if his hearts are substantial, and they are. > The penalty double of 3S is so egregiously awful that I would think it > breaks the chain of causality between the offence and the result. By this > time the opponent has said in the bidding that he has spades. To double this > for penalties with a singleton, knowing partner has something in hearts has > to sound like the spade stack to east; his inaction here is due to west's > bid rather than the failure to alert. Result stands for EW. PP(w) to NS for > the failure to alert. Less certain about score adjustment...but tend to > think not. What do others think? > > -- I'll leave the score adjustment discussion to the L16 gurus. However: I think that if you are going to pass out PPs for failures to Alert, you will be awfully busy, for you surely must be consistent and treat all failures to Alert equally. The ACBL Alert Procedure, incidentally, 16 pages long, makes no mention of this possibility. It speaks only of score adjustments. Marv (Marvin L. French) aka Cato Gone to the Caribbean, back 27 November From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 11:00:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:00:51 +1100 (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 LAA25156 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:00:43 +1100 (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 11obTU-0007mR-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:00:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:45:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> <3832C7A8.D4252BDC@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >I'm not trying to be a gadfly here - I'm trying to understand how best to >deal with this law. Let's get one thing straight: you do not need proof. The game would not be policeable if so, and there is no requirement for proof. Actually, you have accepted that this situation is similar to a civil case, and civil cases do not require proof, so .... When a TD makes a decision [why have recent posts referred to "committee decisions" in obvious TD cases?] he will make a judgement based on the evidence. No-one has to prove anything. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 19 11:04:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:04:25 +1100 (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 LAA25163 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 11:04:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.94] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11obWj-0002qM-00; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:03:46 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01bf3221$853de980$5e5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Discussion of Procedure Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:02:49 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 November 1999 20:59 Subject: Re: Discussion of Procedure >Grattan Endicott} Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >} > >} >I think (1) is a very good idea, and that (2) should be kept to a >} >minimum. >} > >} >I think that real laws changes are the only way to get rid of >} >discussions about exactly how binding an "interpretation of the >} >law with binding authority" is. >} >} +=+ I regard any such discussions as beating the air. >} Each NCBO is in a contractual relationship with >} the WBF to fulfil its undertaking to conform to >} the WBF By-Laws and these expressly say that >} the WBFLC "shall interpret" the laws. The 'shall' >} is worthy of note. >} >} Where I am headed, if the WBFLC will come with, >} is in the direction of setting up an intra-committee >} system of consultation antecedent to publication >} of a binding statement of the law and its effect, >} subject by subject as it arises. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >} >Jesper is probably too polite to point out the intransigence of an >organization that he cannot control, but I am not. Marvin French >has published to this list various commentaries from the ACBL that >(IMO) clearly indicate that their interpretation of the relationship >between the ACBL and the WBF differs from Grattan's view. Whether >the ACBL (as an NCBO) "is in a contractual relationship with the WBF >to fulfil its undertaking to conform to the WBF By-Laws" is moot if >the ACBL chooses not to accept the WBFLC's interpretation of the >Laws and the WBF does not sanction the ACBL > +=+ Not so much 'moot' as 'immaterial' would you say? +=+ >-- +=+ The position is complex and extremely difficult to resolve. Edgar wriggled every which way to avoid addressing it. That was far easier when the whole world was not comparing its experiences via the internet. I appreciate that on both sides of the deep blue divide there are some persons with polarized stances, one way and the other. Some such are prominently placed. My belief is that nothing will be achieved by a descent into hard-line exchanges of gunfire; needed is discussion and exploration of ways in which progress can be made - we need to talk, for which reason the subject is no longer put away in a drawer. [Of course, I am one of those old-fashioned Brits who tends to carry a bag of candies in his pocket - they work on gorillas but are not so good with water buffalo, or rhino.] Where do I want to go? I want to see whether we can establish a mode of consultation that will precede each fresh pronouncement - and which hopefully will increase harmony. If we are to succeed, the disposition to put off for ten years what should be done now has to go. I am quite prepared to see a return simultaneously to the offering of options in the laws where a united line is not agreed (thus transferring the decision from law to regulation). This was the compromise that Edgar and I favoured. ~Grattan~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 13:22:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:22:47 +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 NAA25326 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:22:37 +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 VAA01141 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:22:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA07290 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:49:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:49:21 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911190049.TAA07290@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts (well, doughnuts do cost close to a > dollar these days, but you can't fight cliches) that we'll all leave the > game happier, and that the next time I encounter these opponents the > atmosphere around the table will be much more friendly and pleasant than it > would have been had I done what I should have, kept my mouth shut, called > the TD, and let an AC sort it all out. Does this just possibly suggest to anyone that the general opinion of 'what I should have done' might do with some adjustment? Let me put a challenge to the "Lille interpretation" crowd: suppose an SO adopted a rule that all bids must immediately be explained without waiting for any questions. I believe there are a number of reasons why one might think this is a bad rule, but would anyone argue it is bad because knowing when to ask for an explanation is an important part of the game? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 13:22:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:22:49 +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 NAA25327 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:22:38 +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 VAA01146; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA07174; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:49:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:49:13 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911182349.SAA07174@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 05:32 PM 11/15/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: > >My RHO opened a weak notrump, I doubled, and next hand passed. The pass was > >Alerted and then explained, "The pass forces me to redouble." My I wanted to stay out of this thread, but I can't let the following go by. > From: Eric Landau > LHO offered a correct explanation of the partnership agreement. This has to be wrong, and I'm surprised Eric does not see it. The explanation is clearly and obviously MI. It explains partner's future actions, not the hands shown by the bid. There are rare cases where that can be acceptable (Blackwood comes to mind.), but this isn't one of them. > Even those who support the position that the "Kaplan question" is (or > should be) legal seem, for the most part, to agree that the blatant "pro > question" should be illegal. Marv's anecdote demonstrates the difficulty > of drawing the line between them, which, IMO, supports those who, with > David, think that we should allow neither. Or both. But whatever it is, Marvin's case is not one where it's hard to decide whether there was MI or not. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 14:43:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:43:57 +1100 (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 OAA25537 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:43:47 +1100 (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 11oexM-000Puy-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:43:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 01:14:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? References: <004201bf31f3$bf4be7e0$5a84d9ce@oemcomputer> <001501bf3218$1865ec80$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001501bf3218$1865ec80$622ed2cc@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: >I think that if you are going to pass out PPs for failures to Alert, you will be >awfully busy, for you surely must be consistent and treat all failures to Alert >equally. No, that is not required. To persuade people to follow correct procedure [which is what Procedural Penalties are for] you need to issue some. You do not need to issue a PP for every occurrence, nor is it desirable that you do so. Compare speeding on the roads: this is controlled in most countries by issuing a certain number of penalties. No effort is made to catch and convict everyone who speeds, and not everyone who is stopped is prosecuted: it is not necessary. You just need a sufficient level of fines to keep the problem at an acceptable level. Don't tell me this is unfair. Life is unfair - tough. You are playing a game or living a life where a common acceptable method of control is a limited number of penalties in many situations. Just accept it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 16:04:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:04:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25705 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:04:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:04:14 -0800 Message-ID: <006501bf324b$8b580240$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911181222.AA5945@gateway.tandem.com> Subject: Re: Discussion of Procedure Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:04:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > Jesper is probably too polite to point out the intransigence of an > organization that he cannot control, but I am not. Marvin French > has published to this list various commentaries from the ACBL that > (IMO) clearly indicate that their interpretation of the relationship > between the ACBL and the WBF differs from Grattan's view. Whether > the ACBL (as an NCBO) "is in a contractual relationship with the WBF > to fulfil its undertaking to conform to the WBF By-Laws" is moot if > the ACBL chooses not to accept the WBFLC's interpretation of the > Laws and the WBF does not sanction the ACBL therefore. It is rather > like Eric's previous example of 'work-to-rule' -- the conditions that > occur are intolerable, are meant to be intolerable, and are meant to > make one side or the other budge from their entrenched position. > > If -- unknown to me -- there are discussions underway to enable the > ACBL to fulfil its proper role as a member in good standing of the WBF, > well and good. If not, and if the WBF is unwilling to take action > based on the intransigence and rank disobedience of a member NCBO, then > what is the value of the WBFLC to those of us in ACBL-land? If the > WBF is unwilling to require the ACBL to perform its contracted duties, > perhaps on this side of the pond the FLB can be replaced by the FSB, > The Suggestions of Bridge. > The most amazing thing about all this is that the ACBL has heavy representation on the WBF LC. Do they not participate in its proceedings? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 16:19:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:19:49 +1100 (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 QAA25732 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:19:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveigu.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.30]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA09511 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:19:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991119001641.00748554@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:16:41 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <3834268C.2A6D5343@eduhi.at> References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.1.32.19991117171338.0073d4e0@pop.mindspring.com> <004c01bf3151$f490b720$fa34accf@hdavis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:17 PM 11/18/99 +0100, Petrus wrote: > > >Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> This thread is focussing on asking a question for the benefit of partner. >> However, it is ignoring another possible route out of the dark. If you have >> reason to believe MI has occurred, is this not an infraction? While it is >> illegal for you to ask the question, it cannot be illegal, IMO, for you to >> summon the TD and tell him (away from the table, if need be) that you >> believe there has been MI. The TD can then make the determination, and get >> a full explanation out, if needed, before partner has acted on the MI. Of >> course, the TD call itself may awaken partner to the importance of being >> aware of the opponent's auction, and is UI. However, in practice, this is >> likely to matter only when there was no MI. >> >> L9A1. "Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an >> irregularity during the auction, whether or not it his turn to call". >> >> The only irregularity specifically barred by Law that I can think of off of >> the top of my head is MI by partner. >> >> So, is calling the TD to correct a possible MI infraction by the opponents >> legal/ethical when partner will benefit from the corrected explanation? Or >> do we have to bite our tongues and let the MI taint the board, so that the >> result will later be decided by the TD/AC instead of the players? Do we >> really want to start limiting the rights of the players to summon the TD >> when they notice a possible infraction by the opponents? >> >> Hirsch > >Doesn't this get us to where it all started? A player has the right to ask >(L20F) and the right to call the TD (L9A1).Either both of these rights are >restricted by L73A1 or neither is. (Surely the call for the TD is not a call >within the meaning of L73A1 :)) So to call the TD in a situation where the >main/only purpose is to alert partner to the meaning of the opponents' auction >is as (il)legal as asking a question to that effect. >Hirsch rightly points out that it is UI for partner: does it not follow then >that he is no longer entitled to know the meaning of the opponents' auction (or >act on such knowledge) because the information was gained by illegal means? >This does not really seem practicable. Amen to that. But "practicable" is a standard of very little apparent relevance in this discussion. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 18:42:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:42:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25886 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:42:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([212.1.149.81]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 3418900 ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:33:21 -0000 Message-ID: <000201bf3261$6118e060$519501d4@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Grattan Endicott" , , "Peter Gill" , Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:49:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Oh, you naughty, naughty man. So patient with the net spread. mt To: Schoderb@aol.com ; Peter Gill ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 18 November 1999 22:01 Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit >> >+=+ Oh, didn't I mention that? :-))) I must have >been engrossed in the statement in the 1975 >Law Book that says: "The object of the >Proprieties is twofold: to familiarise players >with the customs and etiquette of the game, >generally accepted over a long period of years; >and to enlighten those who might otherwise >fail to realise when or how they are improperly >conveying information to their partners - often >a far more reprehensible offence than a >violation of a law." Well, that's that, then! > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 20:15:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:15:24 +1100 (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 UAA26169 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:15:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA17914; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:15:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JIINSN53GI0094A6@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:14:08 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:14:08 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:14:07 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Bad score by MI, or what? To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C29F@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 > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >I think that if you are going to pass out PPs for failures > to Alert, you will be > >awfully busy, for you surely must be consistent and treat > all failures to Alert > >equally. > > No, that is not required. To persuade people to follow correct > procedure [which is what Procedural Penalties are for] you > need to issue > some. You do not need to issue a PP for every occurrence, nor is it > desirable that you do so. An interesting issue. Long ago TD's in the Netherlands were taught not to interfer in the game unless they were asked by the players to make a ruling. This attitude still influences the game in my country. Some players tell us that penalties for slow play (in a knock out) can't be given just to one side, unless the TD is called to the table and told that one pair is at fault. Since they don't call, the penalty should be equally distributed, which doesn't make sense in a K.O. Problem solved. Then somewhere in the 80ies (for laws and years) I found a law saying that TD's need to solve/rule in case of any irregularity they become aware of. Then I introduced the live-exercise where a kibitzer comes to the TD telling him that declarer made a revoke and won an extra trick without anybody noticing. And I told my pupils, and the Dutch Bridge Federation, that the solution was not to throw the kibitzer out of the room, but to go to the table and to establish the facts in this case. And if the revoke occurred to restore equity using 64C. An argument my peers used trying to convince me that I was wrong, was that the consequence of doing so, meant that each table should have a TD to watch the game. Otherwise some were disadvantaged above others. Then I tried the argument David uses too: the TD can't solve all the problems in the world but he should solve all the problems he meets (and my examples included police and fines etc). But now David seems to suggest that even within the group of irregularities the TD becomes aware of he can choose which one to penalize and which not. If that is his opinion I don't agree. When not alerting an alertable call gives a penalty only once in a while, the TD using his discretionary powers, we are going the wrong way. We need consistency. The penalty is not given to educate the field, but to have the players following procedures we deem necessary for good proceedings. And the conditions should tell when and when not to give a penalty. So I agree with David that you don't need to penalize all non-alerts to be able to penalize non-alerts, but the distinction should be clear. Using the approach to penalize when the non alert caused problems for the opponents, seems reasonable. Fits also with the idea that when the TD is not called there is no damage done. ton > Compare speeding on the roads: this is controlled in most > countries by > issuing a certain number of penalties. No effort is made to catch and > convict everyone who speeds, and not everyone who is stopped is > prosecuted: it is not necessary. You just need a sufficient level of > fines to keep the problem at an acceptable level. > > Don't tell me this is unfair. Life is unfair - tough. You are > playing a game or living a life where a common acceptable method of > control is a limited number of penalties in many situations. Just > accept it. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on > OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 20:59:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:59:38 +1100 (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 UAA26321 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:59:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:59:01 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA21285; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:44:24 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Dany Haimovici'" , "'Jean Pierre Rocafort'" Cc: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Subject: RE: claim revisited Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:42:46 +0100 Message-ID: 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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >I have a better idea........just to produce some other 234 e-mails : > >Declarer will play diamond to the 9..........let decide for 3 down > >Any reason against it ??? > >Dany > >La cucaracha , la cucaracha .....una <..> cracha !!! Yes - declarer cannot LEGALLY make less than 8 tricks = 2 down. Other than that, well, let's not answer that, shall we? :-)))) Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 21:25:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:25:03 +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 VAA26418 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:24:56 +1100 (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 11olDa-0005Fr-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:24:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:23:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C29F@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C29F@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> , "Kooijman, A." writes snip > >Then somewhere in the 80ies (for laws and years) I found a law saying that >TD's need to solve/rule in case of any irregularity they become aware of. >Then I introduced the live-exercise where a kibitzer comes to the TD telling >him that declarer made a revoke and won an extra trick without anybody >noticing. And I told my pupils, and the Dutch Bridge Federation, that the >solution was not to throw the kibitzer out of the room, but to go to the >table and to establish the facts in this case. And if the revoke occurred >to restore equity using 64C. I spotted a revoke as I was passing a table at the YC some time ago and corrected it. The blml feeling was that I should not have interfered, and indeed I now don't. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 22:35:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA26675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 22:35:44 +1100 (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 WAA26670 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 22:35:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA09687; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:35:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JIISPXUR6A0096H9@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:34:44 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:34:44 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:25:53 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Bad score by MI, or what? To: "'John Probst'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A0@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 > > > >Then somewhere in the 80ies (for laws and years) I found a > law saying that > >TD's need to solve/rule in case of any irregularity they > become aware of. > >Then I introduced the live-exercise where a kibitzer comes > to the TD telling > >him that declarer made a revoke and won an extra trick > without anybody > >noticing. And I told my pupils, and the Dutch Bridge > Federation, that the > >solution was not to throw the kibitzer out of the room, but > to go to the > >table and to establish the facts in this case. And if the > revoke occurred > >to restore equity using 64C. > > I spotted a revoke as I was passing a table at the YC some > time ago and > corrected it. The blml feeling was that I should not have interfered, > and indeed I now don't. chs john that is the harm blml can do. But we might still agree. I am not suggesting that the TD should interfer during play. The opponents are entitled to discover the revoke themselves and to collect the penalty tricks. But if the revoke goes unnoticed, the TD should find out what would have happened without the revoke and restore equity. ton > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 19 23:48:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:01:21 +1100 (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 XAA26760 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:01:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA22993 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:00:22 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:00 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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: <199911161601.LAA04705@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner wrote: > > To: Asking a question when partner is a novice and you know oppos > > have given MI. > > This is the "Kaplan question," but it does not require that partner be > a novice. > The key distinguishing feature is that the opponents have already given > MI. In my own mind I would see the question as a bit further up the continuum were my partner Mr Kay rather than my wife. I would not have a problem if a law in this area were able to draw a distinction between the two (although I can see it might be difficult to phrase). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 00:21:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:21:51 +1100 (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 AAA26949 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:21:43 +1100 (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 IAA23247 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:22:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991119082300.00708508@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:23:00 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> <3832C7A8.D4252BDC@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:45 PM 11/18/99 +0000, David wrote: >[why have recent posts referred to >"committee decisions" in obvious TD cases?] I suspect these posts have come from the ACBL, where most TD decisions that involve any exercise of judgment wind up being appealed when the side that was ruled against has something at stake. There are two reasons for this: (a) TDs are, for the most part, not widely perceived as competent to make bridge judgments, and (b) AC decisions are viewed as sufficiently random that one stands a good chance of having even a sound judgment by the TD overturned. When a ruling is called for in a UI or MI situtation, it is pretty much assumed that it will be appealed unless the losing side just doesn't care about the outcome. There has been much improvement in both regards in recent years, but players' views of these situations have not been changing as rapidly as the facts. 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 Nov 20 00:41:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:01:19 +1100 (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 XAA26759 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:01:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA23003 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:00:22 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:00 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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: <004c01bf3151$f490b720$fa34accf@hdavis> Hirsch wrote: > However, it is ignoring another possible route out of the dark. If you > have > reason to believe MI has occurred, is this not an infraction? While it > is > illegal for you to ask the question, it cannot be illegal, IMO, for you > to > summon the TD and tell him (away from the table, if need be) that you > believe there has been MI. It would seem crazy to me that asking a question be illegal but effecting the same communication via the TD be legal (although this does seem to be the effect of WBFLC99 since TD calls are not included in L73B1). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 00:48:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:01:20 +1100 (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 XAA26758 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:01:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA22984 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:00:21 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:00 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991117142909.0068be14@pop.cais.com> Eric wrote: > I agree with Tim here. *If* "Pass = any agreement as to specific HCP > counts or suit length - I must redouble", then "I must redouble", while > perhaps "correct" in the sense of "true", is certainly not a *proper* > explanation of the partnership agreement. But I saw nothing in Marv's > post > to suggest that this was the case. When I play this way, my agreement > is > "Pass = I must redouble, and then assume that partner will clarify his > intentions forthwith in some obvious manner", then it is an adequate > explanation, In that situation I agree with you. To be honest it didn't occur to me that "pass forces redouble" would exist as an agreement without some understanding of what sort of hand types would make the bid. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 01:12:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 01:12:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27133 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 01:12:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk ([12.78.205.31]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19991119141153.BYZT1865@uymfdlvk> for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:11:53 +0000 Message-ID: <02f801bf3298$00266fc0$89c74e0c@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Richard F Beye" From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca><199911161540.KAA06872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.1.32.19991117171036.0073d4e0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 20:57:47 -0600 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 4:10 PM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > Comments are invited on the following mental experiment: > > You are playing in a game with a relatively inexperienced, shy, partner, > and against familiar opponents. You hear the following auction: > > LHO P RHO You > 1H Dbl 2NT ? > > No alert to the 2nt bid, for whatever reason. You know the opponents play > Jordan, but are pretty sure that partner could not know this, and the > information could be important in subsequent developments. You consider > asking, but being a strict devotee of WBFLC interpretations, decide that > you cannot ask for partner's benefit. > > But as you think about it, you realize that you're not completely certain > about the opponents' agreement here. And after all, they didn't alert, so > maybe you are wrong. Maybe you _should_ ask, before leaping off to the 4S > bid you were considering. You ask for an explanation. > > Is your question legal/ethical? Why don't you just look on their convention card? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 01:55:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:01:19 +1100 (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 XAA26757 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:01:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA22970 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:00:21 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:00 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit 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: <8N1fEoAfysM4Ew+f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote: > Perhaps it is time I tried an example. > > 1NT x xx ? > > You hold xxxx > xxx > xxx > xxx > > Oh dear! But the 1NT opener alerts! You ask, and he says it is > Aardvark, ie it forces 2C, showing a weak hand with a single suit. > Opener is forced to bid 2C, then responder will tell you his suit. > > You can see their CC, and you can see that they do not play Aardvark. > Still, the confusion might give you a chance of getting out of this > alive. Oppos are known to you as ethical players: how can you take > advantage? > > The bidding proceeds > > 1NT x xx[a] p > 2C p 2H ? > > Now, you want partner to pass this out, don't you? Not if partner has AKxxx,x,Qxx,AKxx and everything is right (opener has QT,Kxxx,AKTx,Jxx)- what I want is for partner to be able to make an informed at the table choice. > 2H is no doubt > forcing, and is probably going to be passed by opener, and you are > booked for a good board here - if only you can shut partner up! How can > you get him to pass? > > Easy peasy! Ask RHO what the 2C bid means. Since he is ethical, his > reply will make it clear that his xx was not Aardvark, and partner will > realise that it would be a good idea to shut up. UI does not matter: > LHO who is perfectly ethical will know he is required to pass 2H. > > Congratulations: you have just made sure that partner will pass, and > various people apparently consider the method legal. > To which one might say "so what". If you remain silent you *will* get an adjusted score to 2H *with best defence* if that is the best possibility. If you speak up you get to defend 2H at the table. Of course if you weren't going to request an MI ruling (because this is Blundellsands and it would be inappropriate) then speaking sometimes works to your advantage. If you *were* going to request a ruling then speaking is a "no harm, no foul" event. I find this distinctly less than compelling evidence as to why asking here should be illegal. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 02:08:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:27:03 +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 AAA26975 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:26:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.24]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24058 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:26:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38353B29.EC55FF85@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:57:29 +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: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin References: <3.0.1.32.19991111181918.0073aa1c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > >Please Ed, read everything : > > I do. I don't always understand everything I read, though. That's why I'm > here - trying to learn. :-) > Glad to have you in my classes. :-) > >> > > > >"Unless they can proe otherwise". > > > >I know this, and I apply it. > > > >But my point is on cases whete they cannot prove this. > > > >OK ? > > Okay. But you still haven't answered my question - what constitutes proof? > (See below.) > That is the object of many other threads. It is the core of directing. It has no bearing on my position. I leave the rostrum and pass on to the next lecturer. BTW, I appreciate that my students are coming to my lectures, and I do not expect them to believe everything I say at face value. i do expect them to listen with an open mind, and I still hope to convince them that the dWs has the correct angle in some cases. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 02:49:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:27:03 +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 AAA26974 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:26:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.24]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24043 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:26:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38353A10.44D5A472@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:52:49 +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: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911180459.XAA13411@nowhere.fragment.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > >> > > > >Which is a piece of information neither you, nor your > >partner is entitled to. You have the information, because > >you checked the CC, and it is AI for you, but you are not > >allowed to transfer that info to partner. > >And RHO is not obliged to give you the information either, > >and on top of it all, he is forbidden to say it because of > >L75D2. > > I think your second sentence contradicts your first. :-) If it's AI, he's > entitled to it. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. There is a whole class of types of information that are authorized, but not "entitled". If your opponent tells you he has the Ace of Spades, you are allowed to use that information. It is Authorized Information to you. But he is not obliged to tell you this. Is is not "entitled" information. Please english speakers, help me find a better word for "entitled" information : information which by the Laws of bridge you must be in possession of. > Agree he's not allowed to "transfer that info". The bit > about RHO is interesting. Sitting in his seat, what do you expect him to do > if he's asked? Refuse to answer? Even _that_ is likely to convey UI to his > partner. > Answer exactly corresponding to the first response by his partner : "Aardvark - obliged answer". Which is in fact what partner intended ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 03:16:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:27:01 +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 AAA26973 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:26:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.24]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24020 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:26:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38353932.6571E53D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:49:06 +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: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> <004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991117100023.0068fd18@pop.cais.com> <8N1fEoAfysM4Ew+f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > At 6:32 AM -0500 11/18/99, Herman De Wael wrote: > >One snag : if RHO is a member of the dWs, he will answer > >"Aardvark - forcing reply", since he is bound by L75D2 not > >to "indicate in any manner that partner has explained > >wrong". Your partner is none the wiser. > > And if one deliberately lies in one's explanation of the partnership > agreement, what does that make one? > The answer I was expecting from David, but I'll also bite here. Don't forget one thing : You are (almost) certain about the agreement, because you have looked at the CC. But the player answering does not have this certainty. At least by his partner's response, he is bound to be uncertain. Why then do you suggest he is deliberately lying ? A player is not obliged to tell the opponents what he thinks the agreement is. He is obliged to inform the opponents what the agreement is. This is something he cannot know for certain, never. The distinction is small, but it is there ! My advice to players, the advice of the dWs, is to explain succinctly, one answer, complete, but without frills of "I suppose, but it could also be ...". Yes, in one sense, that may be lying. But we are lying all the time to opponents, aren't we ? If the information handed out does not conform to the agreement, the player shall gracefully accept a score correction. And in one other sense, the player is absolutely telling the truth : he has correctly explained the intentions of his partner. > What of Law 72B4, which says it's illegal to conceal an infraction? > What infraction ? Partner's misexplanation ? Another Law tells us it is absolutely forbidden to reveal that, before time. > It seems to me that 75D2 is missing a word. It should read "may not > _voluntarily_ indicate...". This would make it clear that when asked a > question, 75D2 does not give one license to compound partner's > misexplanation by lying. But I suppose that'll have to wait until the next > revision of the laws. In the meantime, even in the absence of "voluntarily" > it seems to me that the interpretation you propose is a step or six in the > wrong direction. > I think the Lawgivers never intended that particular distinction. And I think I am at least six steps closer to the correct solution than you are. But that is only My Humble Opinion. Regards from the dWs. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 03:44:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 03:44:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f134.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.134]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA28035 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 03:44:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 37254 invoked by uid 0); 19 Nov 1999 16:43:53 -0000 Message-ID: <19991119164353.37253.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:43:52 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:43:52 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Eric Landau (> and >>>) >At 06:25 PM 11/17/99 GMT, Michael (>>) wrote: > >I agree that "could be short" is woefully inadequate for a Precision 1D >opening, and wouldn't be inclined to accept "could be as short as 2". >Again, I'm not much of a Precision >player, but my understanding of the system is that my actual >agreement would be much more specific than that. >I'd probably describe it as "11-15 HCP; could be as short as 2 >if he doesn't have a 13-15 NT hand, a 5-card major, a major-club 4-5, or a >club suit good enough for a natural >2C opening (did I get that right?). > Looks fine to me. OTOH, the version of Precision I play has 14-16NTs, and 2C guarantees 6 (with (42)25, we open 1D; with (43)15 we open 2D. But we're strange :-) >>>That a novice at the table could think of only one >>>possible reason as to why the partnership would have such an agreement, >>>namely that the passer wanted to play the hand in 1NTXX, was because they >>>were a novice, not because they had been in any way misinformed about >>>their >>>opponents' agreement. > > > >Oh really? Ian and I are playing our TD-call club against you. > >The auction goes 1C! (13+, SAF)-2C!(also 13+); 2D!(please > >describe your hand). >Well, I don't know this method at all, Not surprising, given the conditions of its creation and the fact that it has only once or twice been played :-). You almost had it right - 1C 13+ any, 2C 13+, any, asking for description; 2D "no, I'm asking for description". Now that I look at it again, I may have to remove the transfer rebids - it might be too close to a relay system to be GCC legal. But that's very off-topic. > >I stand by my description in my response to Marvin's post > >"Artificial, forcing, has either a one-suited bailout or wants to > >play 1NTxx." as a *minimum* complete explanation. I also stand by > >my dislike of the "forces XX" from the "explaining Blackwood" point > >of view. > >I don't see the analogy. How does one "explain Blackwood" other than "asks >for aces" (or "asks for key cards"), with >a further alert due (at the end of the auction in the ACBL) >if the responses are anything other than the usual, common >and expected ones. > Yes, of course, that's the way *you* do it. Unfortunately, there are still those (not as many now as 5 years ago), who would describe it as "I'm supposed to show my aces - 5C with 0, 5D with 1..." That's what I meant by "explaining Blackwood" (I was constructing analogously to "hestitation Blk" - perhaps "explained Blk" would have been better). Similarly, explaining the pass as "forces xx" is telling the table what the explainer is going to do, not what the pass shows/asks/whatever. Rest of this is of minimal B*L*ML interest...delete [Y/N]? (n) > >Other (less-constructed) examples: > > [Lebensohl 2NT - good full answer deleted] >I would not explain, however, that "a one-suited hand that's >weaker than an immediate suit bid" might be one-suited in >clubs, nor would I alert partner's subsequent pass of 3C as >showing a desire to play in 3C; that would be carrying the >obvious a bit too far. > You obviously don't play in the same clubs I do :-). My "favourite" argument at the K-WBC: with something like xx xxx KT9xxxx x, the auction went 1NT(15-17)-2H-2NT(Leb, not alerted)-p; 3C-p-3D-ap. I explained that 2NT wasn't alerted, that it "forced 3C so I could describe my hand", and we had a 5-minute discussion with the director, because my LHO wanted to double 2NT to show clubs, because I was showing clubs, and what do I mean, I'm not showing clubs, why was I was transferring to clubs with diamonds, what kind of garbage were we trying to pull (even the director was having trouble explaining Lebensohl to this person...it eventually worked out, though). Lebensohl is "the most complicated convention you *should* play" (my quote to my novices) and "the worst convention to miss the alert on" (my quote to everyone else). I hate when I'm called to the table to rule on a Lebensohl MI question - especially when the opponents have never heard of this "modern stuff". > >How about 2C after an EHAA 10-12 NT? "asking me about my major > >suit lengths." [3] > >That would be totally misleading, as it suggests that you are >necessarily >interested in partner's major suit lengths. > I've always wondered how to explain 2D Forcing Stayman. It's equally potentially uninterested in partner's major suit lengths. Thanks for the headstart. > > >How about 2NT after an EHAA 10-12 NT? "bid your better minor, > >pd" [4][5] > > > >[4] "...Most often we'll play there, but could be the start of > >a slam try." > >Well, that's not my agreement. The way I play the 2NT bid, I >describe it >as "asks me to bid my better minor", and that's all. But >I play that >over, say, 3C by partner, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C and 7C are all >possible >contracts. Ah. I didn't get that from the explanation in your book. But it makes sense, really. Thanks. [other "non-placing" bids snipped] I had worked all of those out (except for the GSF ones - I like those). >But as I said above, on those occasions on which I have >felt compelled to play "forces XX" (a method >which I really don't like), that has been the totality >of my agreement, and so I initially read Marv's original >post assuming that that was the case for his opponents. > Ah. And because I've never seen it except in a structured rescue system, I automatically assumed incomplete information. > >(actually, now that I think about it, I believe that in Guoba > >rescues, an immediate XX shows the one-suited rescue, and pass is > >the way to show a two-suited rescue with non-touching suits. > >Change all my quotes to be the actual agreement. Can you tell I > >refuse to play a rescue system that regularly gives the opponents > >two shots at deciding what to do (except when I want them to pull)? :-) > >Well, there was a time when I used to play with Mr. Guoba fairly >often >(assuming that's John, of Toronto), but I have no idea what >"Guoba >rescues" are, and didn't play them back then. > Yep, that's John, of Toronto. How many Guobas do you think there are? :-) And the number of people around here (for here in the circle "no more than an hour away from Greater Toronto", remember) that play it, but can't spell his name, is rather depressing, really. Guoba rescues of 1NTx: 2x shows a two-suited hand (may be 4-4, or even 4-3-3-3 in extremis) with x and x+1. xx shows a one-suited rescue, puppet to 2C. p forces redouble, and then: p is to play. 2m shows a two suited hand with non-touching suits (C+H, D+S, sometimes C+S by agreement). Just so everyone knows where I'm coming from. > >I also find it interesting that EHAA, which > >causes "is that legal" queries and various other complaints > >every time I play it, is both (IMHO)legal on the ACBL *Limited* > >Convention Chart and EBU level 2 legal (but not allowed except > >in the highest level of Australian bridge, because the opening > >2-bids don't guarantee rule-of-15). > >I don't know the Limited Convention Chart, but back in the >late 1970s EHAA, minus a couple of conventions (1NT-P-2NT >for minors and passed-hand jump shifts into singletons >with 4-4-4-1 -- I normally play a lot more than >those, but none of the others are intrinsic to EHAA) >was ruled legal for "Green Card" games at the ACBL Nationals >(including >even 1NT-P-2C, since back then, in the days of forcing >Stayman, any method >of 4-card major asks in which 2H/S showed 4 was >Class A), which I expect >were even more restricted than today's LCC >games. > Probably - the LCC is at http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/limited.htm (there's one bug in the HTML - yes, you can play 2C SAF, instead of/ as well as 1C). Thanks - I'd forgotten about the passed-hand JS. Relevant parts (from RESPONSES AND REBIDS) [my elisions in brackets]: 1.A jump shift of one or more levels (into a suit or into notrump) may be used either to force to game or to show a raise of partner's suit. So all the passed-hand jumps are legal except for 2NT (4441 with opener's suit). 2.Any meaning may be given to the responses and rebids after an opening bid of 1NT. Exceptions: [wide-range NT or <10 HCP]. 3.Any meaning may be given to the responses to and rebids after an opening bid of 2 or higher. [Standard ACBL exceptions, plus "fewer than 5/5"]. So there you are. And the LCC has two major purposes: 1. "(May be used in games with an upper limit of 20 or fewer MPs)" 2. "At Sectional and higher rated tournaments: 2.If a director determines that neither player has a substantially completed card, the partnership may only play conventions listed on the ACBL Limited Convention Chart and may only use standard carding." (not that 2. is ever enforced, but at least I'll have something interesting to play if it ever is :-)) Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 03:48:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 03:17:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns1.san.rr.com (prefetch-100bt.san.rr.com [204.210.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA27891 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 03:16:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.98]) by ns1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:16:36 -0800 Message-ID: <008901bf32a9$7a871c40$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004201bf31f3$bf4be7e0$5a84d9ce@oemcomputer><001501bf3218$1865ec80$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:12:05 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > > >I think that if you are going to pass out PPs for failures to Alert, you will be > >awfully busy, for you surely must be consistent and treat all failures to Alert > >equally. > > No, that is not required. To persuade people to follow correct > procedure [which is what Procedural Penalties are for] you need to issue > some. You do not need to issue a PP for every occurrence, nor is it > desirable that you do so. > > Compare speeding on the roads: this is controlled in most countries by > issuing a certain number of penalties. No effort is made to catch and > convict everyone who speeds, and not everyone who is stopped is > prosecuted: it is not necessary. You just need a sufficient level of > fines to keep the problem at an acceptable level. > > Don't tell me this is unfair. Life is unfair - tough. You are > playing a game or living a life where a common acceptable method of > control is a limited number of penalties in many situations. Just > accept it. > Even the police usually give just a warning for a minor infraction. The traffic statutes specify certain fines for certain infractions. Players are not even warned, in the U. S. Alert Procedure, or by the TD prior to the game, that failures to Alert may subject them to a PP. It's like issuing speeding tickets when no speed limit is posted. The assessment of PPs for MI (which includes Alert mistakes) reminds me of the Mexico City police, who also get a kick out of wielding power by on-the-spot fines instead of addressing the misdemeanor specifically with a ticket. Makes them feel important, very macho. I have called the TD many, many times over the years in regard to violations of the Alert Procedure, usually to enlist hir aid in educating someone who doesn't know the rules. Never once has the TD socked the infractor with a PP, which would be unthinkable here. The only Alert PPs issued are by TDs (rarely) and ACs when dealing with other infractions, apparently feeling that the laws regarding them are not sufficiently harsh and must be augmented by L90. In reality, such PPs are really not for the MI, but for causing extra work for the TD/AC. Marv (Marvin L. French) Off to the Caribbean for Thanksgiving week From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 03:52:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:27:04 +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 AAA26976 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:26:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.24]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA24064 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:26:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:33:40 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Two recent threads have seen a resurface of the De Wael School of thought. It now even has an acronym : dWs, mind the capitalisation! Early on in this second discussion, I thought it was wrong to use the same name for a different point of view, simply because it was the same person expressing the point. But I have then realised that the two problems are closely linked. So there really is a De Wael School, and it falls on me to explain it to the rest of you. Let me first explain that there is no such thing as a De Wael school of rulings. I have never had any major differences of opinion, with any of you, about the ruling that needs to be given on matters concerning this. Rather, the dWs is a type of advice to players. I like to illustrate this by an example. Consider two players, Walter Hermans of Antwerpen and Stephen Davidson of Liverpool. They are struggling with a problem they have often faced and they ask a friend director for some advice. These directors are the second best of their respective cities (HDW and DWS) and they both give advice, but not the same one. Now these two players meet, say in Amsterdam, and at adjoining tables they come up to exactly the same situation. Of course, since they have received different advice, they now act differently, and play proceeds. Later on, the TD comes to the table and gives a ruling. It is my contention that at each table, it will not matter whether DWS or HDW is the director, our rulings will be the same (well, as same as we can ever get it - but that has nothing to do with the dWs). Of course since the player's action is not the same, the ruling will not be the same at both tables. But I don't believe I would be less severe on Walter than would David, nor would I be more severe on Stephen. To end the story, I maintain that after play and ruling, Walter will be better off than Stephen. Not because he has acted in any way unethically, because David will have ruled on that as well, but simply because my advice is better. So far the introduction. What is that advice then ? De Wael School - first advice "When asked about the meaning of a set of calls, you should provide one clear answer, as complete as you can make it, but without any showing of doubt, any alternative meanings. You should also include all information you know from the calls partner did not make. If you are uncertain of your system, you should pick one probable meaning and tell this to opponents. If your answer turns out to be wrong, you should call the TD afterwards, explain what has happened and accept a ruling on misinformation gracefully." I don't see what is particularly wrong with this advice. I believe it fully satisfies the conditions for full disclosure. Let's put it into practice in our tournament in Amsterdam : At table 1, Walter is playing. His partner makes a call about which he is uncertain, and he explains it as "A". It turns out that this is wrong. The opponents are damaged. DWS as TD awards an adjusted score. At table 2, Stephen is playing. His partner makes a call about which he is uncertain, and he explains it as "probably A, might also be B". It turns out that it is B. The opponents, who had gone along with explanation A, are damaged. DWS as TD awards an adjusted score. You might consider that there is a second possibility at this table: the opponents might have gone on with explanation B, and not be damaged. Sure, but last time they tried that, it turned out to be A after all. They then claimed damage, and the TD would not give it. So this scenario is not very likely. Now you might say, so what? Well, that's just my point. Walter did nothing particularly wrong. He was uncertain, and picked wrong. He did not tell the opponents he was uncertain, but my point is that they are not entitled to that information. You may also say, what's the difference? Walter and Stephen both misinformed, and both got ruled against, presumably in the same manner. Well, the difference may well have happened at the table. Stephen's opponents, who knew there was a possibility that Stephen was wrong, may well have based their actions on that. They may even have doubled, and scored a very good score, even without the ruling. While Walter's opponents, who did not know that Walter may well have been wrong, have played normal bridge. They may well have reached their normal contract, and not have been damaged at all. They have a normal score. All in All, I believe that at the end Walter will be no worse off than Stephen, probably better. And all without any unethical means. I would like to await your reactions and keep the rest for lesson 2. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 04:41:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 04:41:35 +1100 (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 EAA28216 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 04:41:25 +1100 (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 RAA12088 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:41:16 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA07483 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:15:14 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:15:13 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 RAA22174 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:15:13 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA08089 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:15:12 GMT Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:15:12 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199911191715.RAA08089@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [I have been keeping out of this thread, but once again ...] Herman writes: > > My advice to players, the advice of the dWs, is to explain > succinctly, one answer, complete, but without frills of "I > suppose, but it could also be ...". Yes, in one sense, that > may be lying. But we are lying all the time to opponents, > aren't we ? No. I am not being deceitful to the opponents in what I say, if I express doubt. Opponents will usually accept my explanation as being my best efforts, and will not ask for a ruling even if they could have been damaged by an "it could be A or B" explanation. I may be be deceitful in what calls I make and what cards I play. That is the game: I am expected to try to win by using the calls I make and the cards I play. Everything else I do, whether I greet opponents at the table, how I explain agreements, how I claim, the tempo in which I make calls and play cards, is not part of winning the game. This "everything else" should help the opponents to win, or aid their enjoyment of the game, or at worst be neutral in those respects. The only lies which should be part of bridge are psyches and false cards. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 04:48:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 04:05:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f20.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA28099 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 04:05:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 95393 invoked by uid 0); 19 Nov 1999 17:04:16 -0000 Message-ID: <19991119170416.95392.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:04:16 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:04:16 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Ed Reppert > >At 10:20 AM -0500 11/17/99, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Please Ed, read everything : > >I do. I don't always understand everything I read, though. That's why I'm >here - trying to learn. :-) > Ain't we all :-). >Okay. But you still haven't answered my question - what constitutes proof? In this case, the footnote to L75D2 gives the answer to that: the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The proof required is "evidence to the contrary". ISTR arguing with someone very high on the food chain in BLML last year that not only that "evidence != strong evidence/proof/evidence that it actually is ingrained", but that strengthening this requirement would be bad for the game, especially where pickup/new partnerships were concerned. I've forgotten which of the members of the ACBL whose opinion I greatly respect and usually take without question it was, at this moment. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 05:21:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 05:21:15 +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 FAA28355 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 05:21:07 +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 11oseU-000HL3-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:20:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:59:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C29F@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C29F@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: >An argument my peers used trying to convince me that I was wrong, was that >the consequence of doing so, meant that each table should have a TD to watch >the game. Otherwise some were disadvantaged above others. Then I tried the >argument David uses too: the TD can't solve all the problems in the world >but he should solve all the problems he meets (and my examples included >police and fines etc). But now David seems to suggest that even within the >group of irregularities the TD becomes aware of he can choose which one to >penalize and which not. If that is his opinion I don't agree. When not >alerting an alertable call gives a penalty only once in a while, the TD >using his discretionary powers, we are going the wrong way. We need >consistency. The penalty is not given to educate the field, but to have the >players following procedures we deem necessary for good proceedings. And the >conditions should tell when and when not to give a penalty. So I agree with >David that you don't need to penalize all non-alerts to be able to penalize >non-alerts, but the distinction should be clear. Using the approach to >penalize when the non alert caused problems for the opponents, seems >reasonable. Fits also with the idea that when the TD is not called there is >no damage done. Consider two cases. You are called to the table because of a non- alert. This has caused some trouble but you finally decide no damage. Case 1. The non-alert is by two elderly ladies who clearly do not understand alerting. Case 2. The non-alert is by Herman De Wael playing with Grattan Endicott who says he forgot. You are saying that we must be consistent and fine both cases or neither? I do not agree. I might fine in Case 2, but not in Case 1 unless I had previously warned them a couple of times. In my view that is acceptable TD judgement. In may own way I am being consistent. I am fining people who transgress above a certain level. That level depends on their perceived abilities, my experience of that pair, and the level of competition. Two equal level pairs in similar circumstances will be treated the same - and that is as much consistency as I believe to be desirable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 20 05:21:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 05:21:12 +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 FAA28352 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 05:21:03 +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 11oseQ-000HKf-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:20:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:01:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C29F@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> 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 <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C29F@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> >, "Kooijman, A." writes > >snip >> >>Then somewhere in the 80ies (for laws and years) I found a law saying that >>TD's need to solve/rule in case of any irregularity they become aware of. >>Then I introduced the live-exercise where a kibitzer comes to the TD telling >>him that declarer made a revoke and won an extra trick without anybody >>noticing. And I told my pupils, and the Dutch Bridge Federation, that the >>solution was not to throw the kibitzer out of the room, but to go to the >>table and to establish the facts in this case. And if the revoke occurred >>to restore equity using 64C. >I spotted a revoke as I was passing a table at the YC some time ago and >corrected it. The blml feeling was that I should not have interfered, >and indeed I now don't. Kojak has convinced me otherwise. His view is wait for the revoke penalty time to pass, then go back and check for equity. I agree - now. Mind you, I don't go looking for things. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 05:43:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 05:43:52 +1100 (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 FAA28462 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 05:43:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-118.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.118]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA23930; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:43:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006a01bf32be$478d97a0$7684d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:45:37 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please note that in my post that started this little exchange I suggested a "PP(w)". I understand that abbreviation to mean "Procedural Penalty-Warning", or a polite reminder from director to the offenders that they really must alert when it is required or that they could have a score adjusted against them in the future. When the TD has been called to the table and asked to rule, I should think it remiss of him not to say this to an offender even if there has been no redressable damage. What is arcane or bizarre about that? -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, November 19, 1999 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >I think that if you are going to pass out PPs for failures to Alert, you will >be >> >awfully busy, for you surely must be consistent and treat all failures to >Alert >> >equally. >> >> No, that is not required. To persuade people to follow correct >> procedure [which is what Procedural Penalties are for] you need to issue >> some. You do not need to issue a PP for every occurrence, nor is it >> desirable that you do so. >> >> Compare speeding on the roads: this is controlled in most countries by >> issuing a certain number of penalties. No effort is made to catch and >> convict everyone who speeds, and not everyone who is stopped is >> prosecuted: it is not necessary. You just need a sufficient level of >> fines to keep the problem at an acceptable level. >> >> Don't tell me this is unfair. Life is unfair - tough. You are >> playing a game or living a life where a common acceptable method of >> control is a limited number of penalties in many situations. Just >> accept it. >> >Even the police usually give just a warning for a minor infraction. The traffic >statutes specify certain fines for certain infractions. Players are not even >warned, in the U. S. Alert Procedure, or by the TD prior to the game, that >failures to Alert may subject them to a PP. It's like issuing speeding tickets >when no speed limit is posted. The assessment of PPs for MI (which includes >Alert mistakes) reminds me of the Mexico City police, who also get a kick out of >wielding power by on-the-spot fines instead of addressing the misdemeanor >specifically with a ticket. Makes them feel important, very macho. > >I have called the TD many, many times over the years in regard to violations of >the Alert Procedure, usually to enlist hir aid in educating someone who doesn't >know the rules. Never once has the TD socked the infractor with a PP, which >would be unthinkable here. The only Alert PPs issued are by TDs (rarely) and ACs >when dealing with other infractions, apparently feeling that the laws regarding >them are not sufficiently harsh and must be augmented by L90. In reality, such >PPs are really not for the MI, but for causing extra work for the TD/AC. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) >Off to the Caribbean for Thanksgiving week > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 05:48:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 04:54:09 +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 EAA28259 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 04:53:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-37.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.67]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Sandhills) with ESMTP id MAA22045 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:53:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38358F99.48FD1BA9@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:57:45 -0500 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Improper information to partner???? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If, by partnership agreement, the suit led by opener is always (except trump, of course) placed at the left by dummy, is this improperly conveying information to partner???? Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 06:35:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 06:35:42 +1100 (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 GAA28659 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 06:35:33 +1100 (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 TAA52193 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:34:53 GMT Message-ID: <00ad01bf32cd$e0aa39c0$da307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Improper information to partner???? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:37:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Nancy Dressing wrote: >If, by partnership agreement, the suit led by opener is always (except trump, of course) placed at the left by dummy, is this improperly conveying information to partner???? Nancy Sounds like a good idea - can't see anything wrong with it. Regards, Fearghal O'Boyle From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 07:12:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 07:12:53 +1100 (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 HAA28763 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 07:12:45 +1100 (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 MAA21606 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:12:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA13113; 19 Nov 99 12:12:32 -0800 Date: 19 Nov 99 12:10:00 -0800 Message-Id: <199911191212.AA13113@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Improper information to partner???? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmmmm... How about the footnote to Law 40E2? Looks like it might be an 'aid to memory' to me -- but this sort of question is *really* out of left field. I might be interested enough to require that it not be done if the dummy were to put the club suit (led) adjacent to the spade suit (trumps) with no red suit void... -- Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, California {ACBL Ditrict 21} From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 08:42:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 08:42:58 +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 IAA28964 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 08:42:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivega9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.65.73]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA23179 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:42:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991119163943.0074a068@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:39:43 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk , David S wrote: >> Perhaps it is time I tried an example. >> >> 1NT x xx ? >> >> You hold xxxx >> xxx >> xxx >> xxx >> >> Oh dear! But the 1NT opener alerts! You ask, and he says it is >> Aardvark, ie it forces 2C, showing a weak hand with a single suit. >> Opener is forced to bid 2C, then responder will tell you his suit. >> >> You can see their CC, and you can see that they do not play Aardvark. >> Still, the confusion might give you a chance of getting out of this >> alive. Oppos are known to you as ethical players: how can you take >> advantage? >> >> The bidding proceeds >> >> 1NT x xx[a] p >> 2C p 2H ? >> >> Now, you want partner to pass this out, don't you? > >Not if partner has AKxxx,x,Qxx,AKxx and everything is right (opener has >QT,Kxxx,AKTx,Jxx)- what I want is for partner to be able to make an >informed at the table choice. > >> 2H is no doubt >> forcing, and is probably going to be passed by opener, and you are >> booked for a good board here - if only you can shut partner up! How can >> you get him to pass? >> >> Easy peasy! Ask RHO what the 2C bid means. Since he is ethical, his >> reply will make it clear that his xx was not Aardvark, and partner will >> realise that it would be a good idea to shut up. UI does not matter: >> LHO who is perfectly ethical will know he is required to pass 2H. >> >> Congratulations: you have just made sure that partner will pass, and >> various people apparently consider the method legal. I have given much thought to your rather carefully crafted example. I think it illustrates your concern quite well, although I hope you agree that it is highly artificial, and introduces some extraneous elements, as others have pointed out. Nevertheless, it deserves a response. I am not clear in my own mind whether the actions cited are legal or otherwise. I am, however, quite clear in my conviction that the legality of these actions can only be assessed with respect to the objective facts of the matter. For the purposes of the Laws, including L73B1, intentions are simply irrelevant. Shall we judge that the asking of this question has communicated information to partner, in contravention of L73? Perhaps so. Partner has become aware, (indirectly) through the asking of the question, that the opponents have had a bidding misunderstanding. But this is equally true whether your thought processes are as described or if they have followed a different, more "innocent" path. Neither the language of L73B1, nor indeed any other in the Laws, requires evaluation of motive to determine legality. And that is a good and wise policy, because motivation is fundamentally unknowable. Unknowable to the objective observer, to be sure, but in the vast majority of instances obscure to the subject as well. In the case you have cited, you might have come to the decision to ask by a different route. Perhaps you thought at first, "How odd!", then asked yourself what the opponents were doing. Then maybe a peek at the convention card to try and figure out their actual agreements. _Then_ you consider that although you are clearly passing regardless, the information might be useful to partner (uh-oh...), but you are concerned as well about the tactical/legal ramifications of asking now, to lock in the UI/MI implications before LHO calls, but you think again about the tactical advantages (and the legal niceties) of inadvertently/intentionally bringing the situation to partner's attention.... I don't know how other people's minds work, and maybe this seems too distracted and confused to serve as a model for your mode of thought. If so, congratulations! You are the world's first bridge-playing android. The point is, teasing a "real" motive out of the above is both impossible and unnecessary. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 08:59:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 08:59:17 +1100 (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 IAA29015 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 08:59:08 +1100 (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 QAA18945 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:59:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991119170028.007087a8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:00:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation In-Reply-To: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:33 PM 11/19/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >At table 1, Walter is playing. His partner makes a call >about which he is uncertain, and he explains it as "A". It >turns out that this is wrong. The opponents are damaged. >DWS as TD awards an adjusted score. We are already be off track here. Walter has not been asked about his partner's call. He has been asked about his *partnership agreement(s)* about his partner's call. These are by no means the same thing. But let's assume that the latter is understood, and that that both Walter and Stephen believe that that is the question they are answering. >At table 2, Stephen is playing. His partner makes a call >about which he is uncertain, and he explains it as "probably >A, might also be B". It turns out that it is B. The >opponents, who had gone along with explanation A, are >damaged. DWS as TD awards an adjusted score. Note that Stephen has given an inadequate explanation. Had he provided a complete explanation, it might have been any one of: (1) "I'm uncertain as to whether our actual agreement is A or B, but I believe it is probably A." Now the opponents have a choice: (1a) They can assume that it is A, and when turns out to be B, they will indeed get the same adjustment as Walter's opponents. (1b) They can take the risk that it is B (i.e. that Stephen and his partner are having a bidding misunderstanding), and act accordingly, knowing that if it were to turn out to be A, they would fall on their faces, would not receive an adjustment, and would wind up worse off than had they chosen 1a. But when it turns out that it was B, they wind up better off than had they chosen 1a, and keep their score. They are entitled to make this choice for themselves. In this scenario, Walter has improperly denied them this choice. (2) "We do not have an agreement about this auction. We do however, have pertinent agreements X and Y, which contradictorily suggest that partner's call means either A or B respectively, but I believe it is probably A." In this scenario, both Stephen and his opponents must decide, from their equal understanding of agreements X and Y and their respective hands, what Stephen's partner's call meant. Stephen has given correct information, but has made the wrong decision based on it. (2a) If the opponents come to the same decision, they will come out ahead, as Stephen and his partner will almost certainly fall on their faces. (2b) If they come to the opposite decision, they will come out even further ahead, as they will be in a position to take additional advantage of Stephen's inferior reasoning. Walter, meanwhile, by giving them incorrect information, has forced his own inferior decision on them, and by doing so has improperly denied them the opportunity afforded by the latter possibility. (3) "Our agreement is that partner's call could mean either A or B, and I'm supposed to work it out based on my hand. Although it's not clear to me what partner's call actually means, I believe it is probably A." This leaves the opponents in the same position as in 2. But in this scenario, both Herman and Stephen would have gratuitously offered their opponents *misleading* information about their hands, which is surely inappropriate. Stephen, however, would presumably would not have been so foolish as to do so, since he believes (albeit incorrectly) that this would put them at an advantage which the law specifically does not require him to provide, while Herman has been forced to do so by his adherence to his understanding of the principles of the DWs (although it's not clear to me that the DWs would actually force him to do this). Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 09:05:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:05:23 +1100 (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 JAA29072 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:05:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:57:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38353932.6571E53D@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> <004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991117100023.0068fd18@pop.cais.com> <8N1fEoAfysM4Ew+f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:56:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:49 AM -0500 11/19/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> >> At 6:32 AM -0500 11/18/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >One snag : if RHO is a member of the dWs, he will answer >> >"Aardvark - forcing reply", since he is bound by L75D2 not >> >to "indicate in any manner that partner has explained >> >wrong". Your partner is none the wiser. >> >> And if one deliberately lies in one's explanation of the partnership >> agreement, what does that make one? >> > >The answer I was expecting from David, but I'll also bite >here. > >Don't forget one thing : You are (almost) certain about the >agreement, because you have looked at the CC. But the >player answering does not have this certainty. At least by >his partner's response, he is bound to be uncertain. Why >then do you suggest he is deliberately lying ? How do you know he's uncertain? There have been a large number of calls made by my partner which systemically (or even based on my "general bridge knowledge" have a meaning which I _know_ - and which turned out not to be what she meant. >A player is not obliged to tell the opponents what he thinks >the agreement is. He is obliged to inform the opponents >what the agreement is. This is something he cannot know for >certain, never. Oh, come on, Herman. In my regular partnership, we have the agreement that a takeout double of a natural suit bid at the one or two level has one of two possible meanings: either short in the bid suit, w/support for the other three, or too strong to make a simple overcall. I _know_ that's our agreement. I'm absolutely certain of it. Granted, opponents are not likely to ask about it, as that's the usual meaning, but if they did, that's exactly how I'd explain it. If they'd asked on one hand last night, partner would have turned up with a balanced 14-count. She misbid, because she was focusing on "try to be more agressive" rather than on "sometime you have to pass, and hope you can come back in later," two things I've said to her about competitive bidding. Are you gonna tell me you'd rule misexplanation in that case? Are you gonna tell me I'm uncertain about a meaning of which I am, as I said, absolutely certain? Suppose she'd been sitting in front of a mirror, and I could see her hand (never mind the ethics of _that_ :). I _know_ she doesn't have a hand conforming to our agreement. Am I now supposed to explain what's in her hand, rather than our agreement? I don't think so. >The distinction is small, but it is there ! No it isn't. >My advice to players, the advice of the dWs, is to explain >succinctly, one answer, complete, but without frills of "I >suppose, but it could also be ...". Yes, in one sense, that >may be lying. But we are lying all the time to opponents, >aren't we ? I hope not - not when it violates the rules. >If the information handed out does not conform to the >agreement, the player shall gracefully accept a score >correction. > >And in one other sense, the player is absolutely telling the >truth : he has correctly explained the intentions of his >partner. The intentions of his partner are irrelevant. As you yourself said, the laws require one to explain the _agreement_, not partner's intentions. >> What of Law 72B4, which says it's illegal to conceal an infraction? >> > >What infraction ? Partner's misexplanation ? Another Law >tells us it is absolutely forbidden to reveal that, before >time. That was my point - the two laws are contradictory, but I think both apply. >> It seems to me that 75D2 is missing a word. It should read "may not >> _voluntarily_ indicate...". This would make it clear that when asked a >> question, 75D2 does not give one license to compound partner's >> misexplanation by lying. But I suppose that'll have to wait until the next >> revision of the laws. In the meantime, even in the absence of "voluntarily" >> it seems to me that the interpretation you propose is a step or six in the >> wrong direction. >> > >I think the Lawgivers never intended that particular >distinction. We don't know; perhaps we should ask them - and ask them to clarify it. >And I think I am at least six steps closer to the correct >solution than you are. But that is only My Humble Opinion. > Maybe you're right. But I don't think so. :-) 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/AwUBODXJj72UW3au93vOEQJ5GACaAyut63OFIVzynLD4CLCjSPwFQFwAnR+T EHizCQpoGS9yl/yGpotL24oY =oviR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 09:14:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:14:31 +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 JAA29100 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:14:24 +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 RAA02656 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:14:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA08667 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:14:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:14:26 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911192214.RAA08667@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > To be honest it didn't occur to me > that "pass forces redouble" would exist as an agreement without some > understanding of what sort of hand types would make the bid. Even in that case, surely there's an implicit agreement. Direct two-level suit bids must mean something, and whatever it is will be excluded from the meaning of pass. Hands that start with redouble or other bids are excluded as well. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 09:15:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:15:16 +1100 (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 JAA29115 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:15:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:07:03 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19991119170416.95392.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:12:18 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:04 PM -0500 11/19/99, Michael Farebrother wrote: >ISTR arguing with someone very high on the food chain in BLML last >year that not only that "evidence != strong evidence/proof/evidence >that it actually is ingrained", but that strengthening this requirement >would be bad for the game, especially where pickup/new >partnerships were concerned. I've forgotten which of the members of the >ACBL whose opinion I greatly respect and usually take without question it >was, at this moment. Heh. I must have missed that one. :-) 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/AwUBODXL4b2UW3au93vOEQJtbgCdH+RFKQYcEnjsfKahop9U60oAKzQAoJzW uF90rJORtHQvajZ55dNZV4l1 =HSPm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 10:02:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:02:55 +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 KAA29207 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:02:47 +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 SAA06415 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA08739 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:02:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:02:49 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911192302.SAA08739@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Bad score by MI, or what? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David J. Grabiner" > A score adjustment is the bridge analogy of a civil case; Yes. > a procedural penalty is the bridge analogy of a criminal case. I don't think so. The bridge analog of a criminal case is C&E action or perhaps a disciplinary penalty. I'd say the real-world analog to a PP is probably punitive damages in a civil case or perhaps a civil fine, but in truth I don't know enough about civil law to be sure. In bridge, a PP is a penalty beyond restoration of equity but not a criminal (C&E) matter. > From: "Kooijman, A." > But now David seems to suggest that even within the > group of irregularities the TD becomes aware of he can choose which one to > penalize and which not. If that is his opinion I don't agree. When not > alerting an alertable call gives a penalty only once in a while, the TD > using his discretionary powers, we are going the wrong way. We need > consistency. About a year or two ago, David S. and I had some correspondence about procedural penalties. Some of it was on BLML, but there may have been some private messages, too. In the end (perhaps astonishing long-time BLML readers), we actually agreed on a set of guidelines for when PP's should be given. David: is the summary message on your web site, or do you have it? If not, I'll look for it. As I recall, the main items were that the player concerned ought to have known better, and that the PP would serve to educate the player involved, but I think there were some other considerations. These or other guidelines can be consistent, even if the result is different in different cases. For example, in Flight A (ACBL), someone neither alerts nor announces a transfer. This merits a PP unless there's an unusual situation. Players in Flight A ought to know they should have done something! Another player fails to alert an ambiguous double. No PP for that unless it is a repeated offense. Nobody knows which doubles are alertable. And of course PP's in the novice game would be rare or nonexistent. A PP may be a formal warning, not necessarily a score reduction. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 10:34:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:34:49 +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 KAA29261 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:34:42 +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 SAA07036 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:34:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA08825 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:34:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:34:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911192334.SAA08825@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > When Kaplan wrote the article way back at the start of this thread, the > Proprieties weren't Laws, were they? > Did the Proprieties became Laws in 1987 or 1975? They were "Chapter VII" of the 1975 Laws but didn't have individual numbers, coming between L71 (Concession Cancelled) and L72 (Scoring). As Kojak says, the Proprieties were unambiguously incorporated into the Laws in 1987. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 10:54:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:54:00 +1100 (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 KAA29353 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:53:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-69-62.s285.tnt9.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.69.62]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA22800; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:00:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004601bf32e9$2c6a5c80$3e45accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <199911180459.XAA13411@nowhere.fragment.com> <38353A10.44D5A472@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:52:41 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 6:52 AM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > Agree he's not allowed to "transfer that info". The bit > > about RHO is interesting. Sitting in his seat, what do you expect him to do > > if he's asked? Refuse to answer? Even _that_ is likely to convey UI to his > > partner. > > > > Answer exactly corresponding to the first response by his > partner : "Aardvark - obliged answer". Which is in fact > what partner intended ! > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > Alas, what happens when he does not play Aardvark with this partner, nor has he ever heard of the convention before? He is unable to lie about his agreement, simply because he does not know the appropriate lie. He *must* wake up partner, having no alternative. What does a dWs player do now? Is he finally allowed to tell the truth? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 11:14:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:14:59 +1100 (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 LAA29395 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:14:51 +1100 (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 QAA02735 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:14:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA28985; 19 Nov 99 16:14:40 -0800 Date: 19 Nov 99 16:13:00 -0800 Message-Id: <199911191614.AA28985@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: The De Wael School, an explanation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman, I'd like an answer to *this* scenario -- and only this scenario. An auction occurs and player A knows that *there is no partnership agreement* as to the meaning of his partner's last call. From his experience in this partnership, their agreements (and, if applicable, their meta-agreements) he knows it is intended as one of exactly two possibilities, either X or Y. A considers his next call, only to be interrupted by a (legal, appropriate) request for an explanation. What does the dWs say he should say? My understanding of the dWs is that it says he should pick either X or Y and explain it that way, being ready to graciously accept a ruling in his opponents favor if it turns out his partner meant the other, and to continue happily if he guessed right. Is this correct? If you are unwilling to accept the postulated condition -- that there really is no partnership agreement -- it goes a long way to explain why the dWs exists. But that's another story. -- Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, California {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 12:13:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:13:08 +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 MAA29478 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:13:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from momsputer (3com-156.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.156]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Sandhills) with SMTP id UAA21073 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:12:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001601bf32f4$ebf0d060$9c9f140c@momsputer> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991119163943.0074a068@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:16:48 -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 Having read the example below, if the person who wanted to stop his partner, instead of asking, just picked up the opponents convention card to see what they were playing. Could not partner, being curious as to what his partner needed to know, also pick up the card at his turn and gain the same information??? ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 4:39 PM Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit > , David S wrote: > >> Perhaps it is time I tried an example. > >> > >> 1NT x xx ? > >> > >> You hold xxxx > >> xxx > >> xxx > >> xxx > >> > >> Oh dear! But the 1NT opener alerts! You ask, and he says it is > >> Aardvark, ie it forces 2C, showing a weak hand with a single suit. > >> Opener is forced to bid 2C, then responder will tell you his suit. > >> > >> You can see their CC, and you can see that they do not play Aardvark. > >> Still, the confusion might give you a chance of getting out of this > >> alive. Oppos are known to you as ethical players: how can you take > >> advantage? > >> > >> The bidding proceeds > >> > >> 1NT x xx[a] p > >> 2C p 2H ? > >> > >> Now, you want partner to pass this out, don't you? > > > >Not if partner has AKxxx,x,Qxx,AKxx and everything is right (opener has > >QT,Kxxx,AKTx,Jxx)- what I want is for partner to be able to make an > >informed at the table choice. > > > >> 2H is no doubt > >> forcing, and is probably going to be passed by opener, and you are > >> booked for a good board here - if only you can shut partner up! How can > >> you get him to pass? > >> > >> Easy peasy! Ask RHO what the 2C bid means. Since he is ethical, his > >> reply will make it clear that his xx was not Aardvark, and partner will > >> realise that it would be a good idea to shut up. UI does not matter: > >> LHO who is perfectly ethical will know he is required to pass 2H. > >> > >> Congratulations: you have just made sure that partner will pass, and > >> various people apparently consider the method legal. > > I have given much thought to your rather carefully crafted example. I think > it illustrates your concern quite well, although I hope you agree that it > is highly artificial, and introduces some extraneous elements, as others > have pointed out. Nevertheless, it deserves a response. > > I am not clear in my own mind whether the actions cited are legal or > otherwise. I am, however, quite clear in my conviction that the legality of > these actions can only be assessed with respect to the objective facts of > the matter. For the purposes of the Laws, including L73B1, intentions are > simply irrelevant. > > Shall we judge that the asking of this question has communicated > information to partner, in contravention of L73? Perhaps so. Partner has > become aware, (indirectly) through the asking of the question, that the > opponents have had a bidding misunderstanding. But this is equally true > whether your thought processes are as described or if they have followed a > different, more "innocent" path. > > Neither the language of L73B1, nor indeed any other in the Laws, requires > evaluation of motive to determine legality. And that is a good and wise > policy, because motivation is fundamentally unknowable. Unknowable to the > objective observer, to be sure, but in the vast majority of instances > obscure to the subject as well. In the case you have cited, you might have > come to the decision to ask by a different route. Perhaps you thought at > first, "How odd!", then asked yourself what the opponents were doing. Then > maybe a peek at the convention card to try and figure out their actual > agreements. > > _Then_ you consider that although you are clearly passing regardless, the > information might be useful to partner (uh-oh...), but you are concerned as > well about the tactical/legal ramifications of asking now, to lock in the > UI/MI implications before LHO calls, but you think again about the tactical > advantages (and the legal niceties) of inadvertently/intentionally bringing > the situation to partner's attention.... > > I don't know how other people's minds work, and maybe this seems too > distracted and confused to serve as a model for your mode of thought. If > so, congratulations! You are the world's first bridge-playing android. The > point is, teasing a "real" motive out of the above is both impossible and > unnecessary. > > Mike Dennis > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 16:06:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA00149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 16:06:42 +1100 (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 QAA00140 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 16:06:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-69-62.s285.tnt9.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.69.62]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id AAA02356 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:06:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:05:19 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 7:33 AM Subject: The De Wael School, an explanation > > "When asked about the meaning of a set of calls, you should > provide one clear answer, as complete as you can make it, > but without any showing of doubt, any alternative meanings. > You should also include all information you know from the > calls partner did not make. If you are uncertain of your > system, you should pick one probable meaning and tell this > to opponents. If your answer turns out to be wrong, you > should call the TD afterwards, explain what has happened and > accept a ruling on misinformation gracefully." > > I don't see what is particularly wrong with this advice. Illustrations below. > I believe it fully satisfies the conditions for full > disclosure. > > Let's put it into practice in our tournament in Amsterdam : > > At table 1, Walter is playing. His partner makes a call > about which he is uncertain, and he explains it as "A". It > turns out that this is wrong. The opponents are damaged. > DWS as TD awards an adjusted score. > > At table 2, Stephen is playing. His partner makes a call > about which he is uncertain, and he explains it as "probably > A, might also be B". It turns out that it is B. The > opponents, who had gone along with explanation A, are > damaged. DWS as TD awards an adjusted score. > Before going any further, we need to know why Walter and Stephen are uncertain. There are several possible reasons, and each have different implications. 1) They have no agreement 2) They have no agreement, but are able to make an educated guess based on similar partnership auctions where agreements exist 3) They have an agreement, but the agreement is ambiguous. 4) They have an agreement, but it has been forgotten. Now let's take a look at Walter in each of these situations: 1) No agreement. Walter nevertheless knows, through general bridge knowledge that the call can mean A or B. Being a true follower of dWs, he picks one and states that as the partnership agreement. He gets lucky and actually explains his partner's intent. A victory for dWs! Not at all. Walter's partner is an ethical player. He knows that the pair has no agreement about the call, which can mean A or B. And yet here is Walter explaining the call as A. This is UI to Walter's partner. He now knows that Walter is taking his call as A through UI. So, being an ethical player, he must bid as though the real agreement was B, if it is at all a logical alternative. Walter's made-up explanation has caught him in a L16 quandary. Here is the real flaw in dWs. Even when the actual intent of the call is correctly explained, L16 prevents partner from playing it that way. The dWs approach is the only way to virtually guarantee MI with an ethical partner. You can't make up agreements on the fly, Herman. Law 16 will bite you. L16 and L40 may also bite Stephen, who should not be giving the opponents bridge lessons. At table 3, Donald properly said "no agreement" and offered no speculations. He is the only one who will get out of this without an adjustment. 2) No agreement, but experience on similar auctions. Tell the truth. The first words should be "no agreement". This gets followed with a description of the agreements that may apply to the hand (Eric described this better than I). Once the opponents have the same information about the relevant partnership agreements as either Walter or Steven, then disclosure has been fulfilled. Walter and Steven both postulate an agreement where none exists. Both may wind up with MI or UI adjustments. 3) Ambiguous agreement. The call may actually mean either A or B by partnership agreement, with A occurring much more frequently than B. In this case, Stephen's explanation is correct, while Walter has made an incomplete disclosure. I'm assuming that Herman does not mean to apply dWs to this particular situation. 4) Forgotten agreement. This is the only area where dWs may sometimes work. Walter guesses an agreement and explains it. If it's the real partnership agreement, he wins, and an actual bridge result occurs. If he's wrong, the TD cleans up the mess of MI and UI. Stephen is expressing doubt, which is UI to partner, and also telling partner how he is taking the call, which is about to place partner in a nasty L16 situation. What happens if we try the simple truth: "I have forgotten our agreement. I suggest you summon the TD". This gets the TD to the table in time to repair the MI before it can damage the opponents, and puts the opponents on alert that partner has UI. Partner has the UI of doubt, but does not know how we are taking the call, which at least minimizes the effect of the UI. > You might consider that there is a second possibility at > this table: the opponents might have gone on with > explanation B, and not be damaged. Sure, but last time they > tried that, it turned out to be A after all. They then > claimed damage, and the TD would not give it. So this > scenario is not very likely. > > Now you might say, so what? Well, that's just my point. > Walter did nothing particularly wrong. He was uncertain, > and picked wrong. He did not tell the opponents he was > uncertain, but my point is that they are not entitled to > that information. > True, but that information can allow the opponents to get the TD, who can correct the MI before the opponents are damaged by it. The opponents are entitled to full disclosure of the correct agreements. If expressing doubt achieves this, then it may be the correct way to handle the situation. Concealing doubt (forgotten agreement situation) creates a coin toss situation. If correct, normal bridge is played, and if not correct, the TD adjusts the situation. Revealing doubt creates UI for partner 100% of the time, but eliminates MI (if the TD gets called, anyway). > You may also say, what's the difference? Walter and Stephen > both misinformed, and both got ruled against, presumably in > the same manner. > > Well, the difference may well have happened at the table. > Stephen's opponents, who knew there was a possibility that > Stephen was wrong, may well have based their actions on > that. They may even have doubled, and scored a very good > score, even without the ruling. > While Walter's opponents, who did not know that Walter may > well have been wrong, have played normal bridge. They may > well have reached their normal contract, and not have been > damaged at all. They have a normal score. > All in All, I believe that at the end Walter will be no > worse off than Stephen, probably better. And all without > any unethical means. > The dWs involves representing a player's guess about the intent of partner's call as a partnership agreement, when in many cases that will not be correct. Not quite a lie, but much closer than I like. And yes, I do consider lying unethical. (Consider this my last comment about the part of dWs that requires that a player lie to the opponents about his agreements to avoid waking partner up to the situation). The dWs also puts partner in an impossible situation when the made up explanation occurs in a "no agreement" auction. Here, the guess at partner's intent has the effect of making up an agreement on the spot. An ethical partner can no longer play this agreement, even if it was his original intent. Only an unethical partner, who will deliberately play the agreement established by the UI, can handle this. I can remember (with great embarrassment) an episode from my first time at a bridge tournament. My partner made a call that could have had a natural or an artificial meaning. I had no idea what he intended. So, thinking myself clever, I said "alert". I chose an agreement, like a good follower of dWs. My partner now knew how I was taking his bid, and our auction proceded accordingly. Neither of us knew how illegal our actions were (I won't say unethical, since we didn't know any better). > I would like to await your reactions and keep the rest for > lesson 2. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > I believe in keeping things simple. If asked about my agreements, I tell the full truth about what I know about them. I don't speculate about anything that is not a partnership agreement. IMO, simply sticking to the truth is not a bad way to play the game. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 21:50:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:50:01 +1100 (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 VAA00617 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:49:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-65.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.65]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA16016 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:49:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383660F5.A47E998F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:51:01 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <3.0.1.32.19991119170028.007087a8@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 01:33 PM 11/19/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > > >At table 1, Walter is playing. His partner makes a call > >about which he is uncertain, and he explains it as "A". It > >turns out that this is wrong. The opponents are damaged. > >DWS as TD awards an adjusted score. > > We are already be off track here. Walter has not been asked about his > partner's call. He has been asked about his *partnership agreement(s)* > about his partner's call. These are by no means the same thing. But let's > assume that the latter is understood, and that that both Walter and Stephen > believe that that is the question they are answering. > Well, of course that is the question. It is usually asked in the non-verbal manner "ehh?". > >At table 2, Stephen is playing. His partner makes a call > >about which he is uncertain, and he explains it as "probably > >A, might also be B". It turns out that it is B. The > >opponents, who had gone along with explanation A, are > >damaged. DWS as TD awards an adjusted score. > > Note that Stephen has given an inadequate explanation. Well, I AM using shortcuts. > Had he provided a > complete explanation, it might have been any one of: > > (1) "I'm uncertain as to whether our actual agreement is A or B, but I > believe it is probably A." This is indeed the long form of what I am intending, and I shall disregard your cases (2) and (3). They do NOT apply. > Now the opponents have a choice: (1a) They can > assume that it is A, and when turns out to be B, they will indeed get the > same adjustment as Walter's opponents. Exactly. (1b) They can take the risk that it > is B (i.e. that Stephen and his partner are having a bidding > misunderstanding), and act accordingly, knowing that if it were to turn out > to be A, they would fall on their faces, would not receive an adjustment, > and would wind up worse off than had they chosen 1a. So then why ever would they choose this ? > But when it turns out > that it was B, they wind up better off than had they chosen 1a, and keep > their score. No they don't wind up better, they wind up worse. When they choose 1a, they will get a ruling, which cannot be worse, and will often be better, than if they had chosen 1b. > They are entitled to make this choice for themselves. In > this scenario, Walter has improperly denied them this choice. > What's improper about it ? He has not said that he is in doubt ! He is not obliged to say that he is in doubt. _What is improper about Walter's actions ????_ > (2) "We do not have an agreement about this auction. We do however, have > pertinent agreements X and Y, which contradictorily suggest that partner's > call means either A or B respectively, but I believe it is probably A." I find that statement to be exactly the same as "A, might also be B". It is just a different way of saying it, a different reason for the player's uncertainty. Again, the opponents have no reason to believe it is B. Again, they receive some information that they are not entitled to. Please go ahead and tell them this, I still believe it is better (for me), not to hand out information they are not entitled to. > In > this scenario, both Stephen and his opponents must decide, from their equal > understanding of agreements X and Y and their respective hands, what > Stephen's partner's call meant. Stephen has given correct information, but > has made the wrong decision based on it. (2a) If the opponents come to the > same decision, they will come out ahead, as Stephen and his partner will > almost certainly fall on their faces. (2b) If they come to the opposite > decision, they will come out even further ahead, as they will be in a > position to take additional advantage of Stephen's inferior reasoning. Indeed, and my point is that you are not obliged to help your opponents to this degree. > Walter, meanwhile, by giving them incorrect information, has forced his own > inferior decision on them, and by doing so has improperly denied them the > opportunity afforded by the latter possibility. > For which they will get redress. > (3) "Our agreement is that partner's call could mean either A or B, and I'm > supposed to work it out based on my hand. Although it's not clear to me > what partner's call actually means, I believe it is probably A." This > leaves the opponents in the same position as in 2. But in this scenario, > both Herman and Stephen would have gratuitously offered their opponents > *misleading* information about their hands, which is surely inappropriate. > Stephen, however, would presumably would not have been so foolish as to do > so, since he believes (albeit incorrectly) that this would put them at an > advantage which the law specifically does not require him to provide, while > Herman has been forced to do so by his adherence to his understanding of > the principles of the DWs (although it's not clear to me that the DWs would > actually force him to do this). > Again the same response. What is so terribly wrong in denying the opponents information they are not entitled to ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 21:50:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:50:01 +1100 (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 VAA00618 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:49:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-65.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.65]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA16023 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:49:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38366208.814D7C29@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:55:36 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <199911191614.AA28985@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: > > Herman, > I'd like an answer to *this* scenario -- and only this scenario. > An auction occurs and player A knows that *there is no partnership > agreement* as to the meaning of his partner's last call. From his > experience in this partnership, their agreements (and, if applicable, > their meta-agreements) he knows it is intended as one of exactly two > possibilities, either X or Y. A considers his next call, only to be > interrupted by a (legal, appropriate) request for an explanation. > > What does the dWs say he should say? > > My understanding of the dWs is that it says he should pick either > X or Y and explain it that way, being ready to graciously accept a > ruling in his opponents favor if it turns out his partner meant the > other, and to continue happily if he guessed right. Is this correct? > Yes it is. > If you are unwilling to accept the postulated condition -- that > there really is no partnership agreement -- it goes a long way to explain > why the dWs exists. But that's another story. > I am indeed unwilling to accept this. I am not unwilling to accept that there are cases where there is no agreement, but in those cases the conclusion usually is that the agreement is "very natural". That too is an agreement that must be disclosed. But I am talking of a specific kind of case, in which the explanations A and B are quite different, and where the bidders hand clearly indicates whether he intended it as A or B. Things like 1NT-(2H). This shows either Hearts, or Spades, but not both. I am indeed unwilling to accept the explanation "no agreement" as a valid one and I am forced to rule by the footnote as if the bid shall have meant what is in the hand. Please read my examples like that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 21:49:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:49:59 +1100 (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 VAA00616 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:49:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-65.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.65]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA16010 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:49:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38365DB9.C4F7371D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:37:13 +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: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <199911180459.XAA13411@nowhere.fragment.com> <38353A10.44D5A472@village.uunet.be> <004601bf32e9$2c6a5c80$3e45accf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > Answer exactly corresponding to the first response by his > > partner : "Aardvark - obliged answer". Which is in fact > > what partner intended ! > > > > > > > > Alas, what happens when he does not play Aardvark with this partner, nor has > he ever heard of the convention before? He is unable to lie about his > agreement, simply because he does not know the appropriate lie. He *must* > wake up partner, having no alternative. What does a dWs player do now? Is > he finally allowed to tell the truth? > > Hirsch Good one Hirsh, I suggest he does what he would always do when partner made a call that he doesn't understand : guess, and don't inform partner that he's guessing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 21:50:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:50:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA00615 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:49:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-65.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.65]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15997 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:49:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38365D3A.D906E010@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:35:06 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> <004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991117100023.0068fd18@pop.cais.com> <8N1fEoAfysM4Ew+f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > At 6:49 AM -0500 11/19/99, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >Don't forget one thing : You are (almost) certain about the > >agreement, because you have looked at the CC. But the > >player answering does not have this certainty. At least by > >his partner's response, he is bound to be uncertain. Why > >then do you suggest he is deliberately lying ? > > How do you know he's uncertain? Well, shouldn't he be ? He's just heard his partner explain a call differently from what he himself thought it meant. Are you suggesting that all players are equally arrogant in not allowing for the fact that they themselves may be wrong ? And even if one such player exists, who is to say the fictitious case David posed is about this one player ? So, this player is uncertain. And now you are telling me that by explaining the next call in a consistent manner, he is deliberately lying? No he is not. He may be telling an untruth, he may be giving MI, but for sure he is not "deliberately lying" if such a thing exists at all. And if you think he is, then IMO this "deliberately lying" is not an infraction of the Laws. > There have been a large number of calls > made by my partner which systemically (or even based on my "general bridge > knowledge" have a meaning which I _know_ - and which turned out not to be > what she meant. > You see? Even when you are certain you are wrong! > >A player is not obliged to tell the opponents what he thinks > >the agreement is. He is obliged to inform the opponents > >what the agreement is. This is something he cannot know for > >certain, never. > > Oh, come on, Herman. [snip] You focus on a case, where the director shall rule afterwards what the agreement actually is. Absolutely not the thing we are discussing. > > >The distinction is small, but it is there ! > > No it isn't. > > >My advice to players, the advice of the dWs, is to explain > >succinctly, one answer, complete, but without frills of "I > >suppose, but it could also be ...". Yes, in one sense, that > >may be lying. But we are lying all the time to opponents, > >aren't we ? > > I hope not - not when it violates the rules. > What rules ? Show me the Law number in TFLB that says "thou shalt not lie to opponents". There is one Law that goes "if your opponents are damaged because you have misinformed them about your agreements, they shall get redress", but that is not the same thing. And actually, what I was talking of was Psyching, Miscarding, underleading aces, and a lot of other actions deliberately intended to mislead opponents, all permitted by Law, but all possibly called Lying. > >If the information handed out does not conform to the > >agreement, the player shall gracefully accept a score > >correction. > > > >And in one other sense, the player is absolutely telling the > >truth : he has correctly explained the intentions of his > >partner. > > The intentions of his partner are irrelevant. As you yourself said, the > laws require one to explain the _agreement_, not partner's intentions. > Indeed, but how is the player to know which is the agreement, when apparently his partner has some other idea. He cannot go and check the CC. If he asks what he should do, you cannot go and give him the following advice : "if you are absolutely certain, tell it like you think, if you are reasonably certain, also, and if you are in doubt, tell it like partner has explained it". That is not good advice. My advice is simpler, and in accordance with L75D2. > >> What of Law 72B4, which says it's illegal to conceal an infraction? > >> > > > >What infraction ? Partner's misexplanation ? Another Law > >tells us it is absolutely forbidden to reveal that, before > >time. > > That was my point - the two laws are contradictory, but I think both apply. > Of course they both apply, but which one are you going to break. IMO the breaking of L75D2 is much worse than the other one. > >> It seems to me that 75D2 is missing a word. It should read "may not > >> _voluntarily_ indicate...". This would make it clear that when asked a > >> question, 75D2 does not give one license to compound partner's > >> misexplanation by lying. But I suppose that'll have to wait until the next > >> revision of the laws. In the meantime, even in the absence of "voluntarily" > >> it seems to me that the interpretation you propose is a step or six in the > >> wrong direction. > >> > > > >I think the Lawgivers never intended that particular > >distinction. > > We don't know; perhaps we should ask them - and ask them to clarify it. > And when they do, continue on an endless discussion if they have the right to do so ? Let's deal with this ourselves, find out what the best solution is for the spirit of the Game and then tell the Lawmakers which interpretation is to be preferred. > >And I think I am at least six steps closer to the correct > >solution than you are. But that is only My Humble Opinion. > > > > Maybe you're right. But I don't think so. :-) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 20 21:50:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:50:16 +1100 (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 VAA00640 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:50:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-65.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.65]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA16042 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:49:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:20:04 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > Before going any further, we need to know why Walter and Stephen are > uncertain. There are several possible reasons, and each have different > implications. > Well, for one thing, I don't believe the reasons should matter, and for another, the reasons you list below contain a few that I don't consider relevant for this case. > 1) They have no agreement I don't buy this. They have at least an agreement to keep everything undiscussed along general lines. > 2) They have no agreement, but are able to make an educated guess based on > similar partnership auctions where agreements exist Then they have an agreement. > 3) They have an agreement, but the agreement is ambiguous. How can that be ? > 4) They have an agreement, but it has been forgotten. > That is the case I am talking of. Forgotten, uncertain, in doubt. > Now let's take a look at Walter in each of these situations: > > 1) No agreement. Walter nevertheless knows, through general bridge > knowledge that the call can mean A or B. Being a true follower of dWs, he > picks one and states that as the partnership agreement. He gets lucky and > actually explains his partner's intent. A victory for dWs! Not at all. > Walter's partner is an ethical player. He knows that the pair has no > agreement about the call, which can mean A or B. And yet here is Walter > explaining the call as A. This is UI to Walter's partner. He now knows > that Walter is taking his call as A through UI. So, being an ethical > player, he must bid as though the real agreement was B, if it is at all a > logical alternative. Sorry, he has already given the call the meaning A or B, by bidding it with the hand he has (meanings A and B are far enough apart). > Walter's made-up explanation has caught him in a L16 > quandary. Here is the real flaw in dWs. Even when the actual intent of the > call is correctly explained, L16 prevents partner from playing it that way. No it doesn't. > The dWs approach is the only way to virtually guarantee MI with an ethical > partner. You can't make up agreements on the fly, Herman. Law 16 will bite > you. > Anyway, I don't believe the response "no agreement". > L16 and L40 may also bite Stephen, who should not be giving the opponents > bridge lessons. At table 3, Donald properly said "no agreement" and > offered no speculations. He is the only one who will get out of this > without an adjustment. > No, because I don't believe him. If the call can have such different meanings as A and B, then the opponents are entitled to know which one of them both it is. > 2) No agreement, but experience on similar auctions. Tell the truth. The > first words should be "no agreement". Why ? Experience is also disclosable. Why should one add information that opponents are not entitled to ? > This gets followed with a description > of the agreements that may apply to the hand (Eric described this better > than I). Once the opponents have the same information about the relevant > partnership agreements as either Walter or Steven, then disclosure has been > fulfilled. Walter and Steven both postulate an agreement where none exists. > Both may wind up with MI or UI adjustments. > Again, I don't believe such a situation can exist in the real world. Since partner intended the call to mean B, "no agreement" is not a coorect explanation anyway. You are too far from real life to have a good discussion. > 3) Ambiguous agreement. The call may actually mean either A or B by > partnership agreement, with A occurring much more frequently than B. What ? When have you ever seen such a thing. By the footnote, the call has the meaning that corresponds to the hand, unless there is proof to the contrary. Nothing ambiguous about it. If you say that you have ambiguous agreements, you are in fact lying ! > In > this case, Stephen's explanation is correct, while Walter has made an > incomplete disclosure. I'm assuming that Herman does not mean to apply dWs > to this particular situation. > Exactly. All of the above is fruitless search for something to discredit me with. None of it applies to the case I am discussing, which is below. > 4) Forgotten agreement. This is the only area where dWs may sometimes work. Thank you ! > Walter guesses an agreement and explains it. If it's the real partnership > agreement, he wins, and an actual bridge result occurs. If he's wrong, the > TD cleans up the mess of MI and UI. Indeed. > Stephen is expressing doubt, which is > UI to partner, and also telling partner how he is taking the call, which is > about to place partner in a nasty L16 situation. What happens if we try the > simple truth: "I have forgotten our agreement. I suggest you summon the > TD". This gets the TD to the table in time to repair the MI before it can > damage the opponents, and puts the opponents on alert that partner has UI. > Partner has the UI of doubt, but does not know how we are taking the call, > which at least minimizes the effect of the UI. > Well, "I have honestly forgotten, please ask my partner" is a possibility. But not the one the dWs is giving as advice. We are not trying to establish what the player should do, we are discussing one particular piece of advice. This is another type of advice. In the sense that it ensures correct information, it may be better. But it also gives UI to partner, and a lot of AnEI (Authorized but not Entitled Information) to opponents. In that sense, it is a lot worse than the dWs advice, agreed ? > > You might consider that there is a second possibility at > > this table: the opponents might have gone on with > > explanation B, and not be damaged. Sure, but last time they > > tried that, it turned out to be A after all. They then > > claimed damage, and the TD would not give it. So this > > scenario is not very likely. > > > > Now you might say, so what? Well, that's just my point. > > Walter did nothing particularly wrong. He was uncertain, > > and picked wrong. He did not tell the opponents he was > > uncertain, but my point is that they are not entitled to > > that information. > > > > True, but that information can allow the opponents to get the TD, who can > correct the MI before the opponents are damaged by it. The opponents are > entitled to full disclosure of the correct agreements. If expressing doubt > achieves this, then it may be the correct way to handle the situation. You are still believing that MI is a great crime. It is not. It does not even warrant a PP under the ordinary Laws, and the measure is redress, not punishment. > Concealing doubt (forgotten agreement situation) creates a coin toss > situation. If correct, normal bridge is played, and if not correct, the TD > adjusts the situation. Revealing doubt creates UI for partner 100% of the > time, but eliminates MI (if the TD gets called, anyway). > But the TD does not get called ! The opponents just follow the stated (primary) meaning, and have the additional information that there is doubt (and that is AnEI) > > You may also say, what's the difference? Walter and Stephen > > both misinformed, and both got ruled against, presumably in > > the same manner. > > > > Well, the difference may well have happened at the table. > > Stephen's opponents, who knew there was a possibility that > > Stephen was wrong, may well have based their actions on > > that. They may even have doubled, and scored a very good > > score, even without the ruling. > > While Walter's opponents, who did not know that Walter may > > well have been wrong, have played normal bridge. They may > > well have reached their normal contract, and not have been > > damaged at all. They have a normal score. > > All in All, I believe that at the end Walter will be no > > worse off than Stephen, probably better. And all without > > any unethical means. > > > > The dWs involves representing a player's guess about the intent of partner's > call as a partnership agreement, when in many cases that will not be > correct. Well, what is the difference between a player who honestly believes the agreement is A, and one who has doubt about it ? If the first is allowed to simply state "A", and not the second, then are we not opening the door to lying to the director afterwards. I follow the dWs, and don't express doubt, but when pressed, I deny that I was in doubt all the time! When doubt is AnEI ! > Not quite a lie, but much closer than I like. And yes, I do > consider lying unethical. (Consider this my last comment about the part of > dWs that requires that a player lie to the opponents about his agreements to > avoid waking partner up to the situation). > > The dWs also puts partner in an impossible situation when the made up > explanation occurs in a "no agreement" auction. Here, the guess at > partner's intent has the effect of making up an agreement on the spot. An > ethical partner can no longer play this agreement, even if it was his > original intent. Whyever not. Remember that he made the call in the first place ! > Only an unethical partner, who will deliberately play the > agreement established by the UI, can handle this. > > I can remember (with great embarrassment) an episode from my first time at a > bridge tournament. My partner made a call that could have had a natural or > an artificial meaning. I had no idea what he intended. So, thinking myself > clever, I said "alert". I chose an agreement, like a good follower of dWs. > My partner now knew how I was taking his bid, and our auction proceded > accordingly. Neither of us knew how illegal our actions were (I won't say > unethical, since we didn't know any better). > And they never checked his hand afterwards ? Which should have revealed that his intention was different from your explanation ? Then you were lucky ! And unethical. Of course Walter's statement remains UI for his partner. > > I would like to await your reactions and keep the rest for > > lesson 2. > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > > > I believe in keeping things simple. If asked about my agreements, I tell > the full truth about what I know about them. I don't speculate about > anything that is not a partnership agreement. IMO, simply sticking to the > truth is not a bad way to play the game. > I believe in keeping things simple. If asked about my agreements, I tell the agreement that I believe applies. I may have to speculate, but then I am not a perfect player, and sometimes my partner makes a call I don't understand. IMO, simply sticking to one explanation is not a bad way to play the game. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 21 02:44:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 02:44:25 +1100 (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 CAA01678 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 02:44:15 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA31303 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 16:44:06 +0100 Received: from ip47.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.47), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda31300; Sat Nov 20 16:44:02 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Improper information to partner???? Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 16:44:02 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <1jfd3sgi150krcjs6q9uuq0j2j8v6p6nas@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <38358F99.48FD1BA9@pinehurst.net> In-Reply-To: <38358F99.48FD1BA9@pinehurst.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 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 CAA01679 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:57:45 -0500, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >If, by partnership agreement, the suit led by opener is always (except >trump, of course) placed at the left by dummy, is this improperly >conveying information to partner???? Nancy As dummy in a no-trump contract, I generally try to put a suit that I find it very unlikely that partner will mistake for a trump suit to the right of dummy - this is often the suit led. Of course it is an aid to memory - but I think that arrangement of your own cards is a _legal_ aid to memory. Just like I am allowed to look at my cards all through the play in order to remember which cards I have, or at the vulnerability on the board. And I believe this goes for dummy's arrangement of cards too. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 21 06:12:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 06:12:19 +1100 (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 GAA02231 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 06:12:11 +1100 (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 ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:10:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38365D3A.D906E010@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <000401bf2b04$a6db0ba0$5a5108c3@swhki5i6> <3.0.1.32.19991109204128.0132919c@pop.mindspring.com> <90CEJ3AFxYK4EwsN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991110205658.0133052c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991111161757.01337944@pop.mindspring.com> <004001bf2fd2$8072ad60$622ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991117100023.0068fd18@pop.cais.com> <8N1fEoAfysM4Ew+f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:06:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:35 AM -0500 11/20/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> At 6:49 AM -0500 11/19/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >> > >> >Don't forget one thing : You are (almost) certain about the >> >agreement, because you have looked at the CC. But the >> >player answering does not have this certainty. At least by >> >his partner's response, he is bound to be uncertain. Why >> >then do you suggest he is deliberately lying ? >> >> How do you know he's uncertain? > >Well, shouldn't he be ? He's just heard his partner explain >a call differently from what he himself thought it meant. >Are you suggesting that all players are equally arrogant in >not allowing for the fact that they themselves may be wrong >? I am now totally confused. I can't remember who made what calls, who alerted, who explained, or what they were. And I can't make sense out of the previous messages. So I'm going to fall back. I agree with Hirsch Davis. I quote him here, without permission (sorry, Hirsch): "I believe in keeping things simple. If asked about my agreements, I tell the full truth about what I know about them. I don't speculate about anything that is not a partnership agreement. IMO, simply sticking to the truth is not a bad way to play the game." I'm sorry, Herman, but I just can't see that the dWs is right about this. 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/AwUBODbygb2UW3au93vOEQLk5QCgsD6QfOXBYEzsDq4mjaV2AiD13CIAn0Ct 8Oq1SAVykG2ZNV4esgsmIeX2 =bmZC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 21 07:09:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 07:09:05 +1100 (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 HAA02331 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 07:08:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-122-119.s278.tnt7.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.122.119]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA29087; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 15:15:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 15:07:40 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 4:20 AM Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > > Before going any further, we need to know why Walter and Stephen are > > uncertain. There are several possible reasons, and each have different > > implications. > > > > Well, for one thing, I don't believe the reasons should > matter, and for another, the reasons you list below contain > a few that I don't consider relevant for this case. > > > 1) They have no agreement > > I don't buy this. They have at least an agreement to keep > everything undiscussed along general lines. > This is a standard that is not possible for most players. In fact, it's probably not possible for any players. New situations appear. That's part of the beauty of the game. When they do appear, we may not have a partnership agreement that covers them. > > 2) They have no agreement, but are able to make an educated guess based on > > similar partnership auctions where agreements exist > > Then they have an agreement. > No, they have partnership experience that may be relevant to the auction, but that does not constitute an agreement. > > 3) They have an agreement, but the agreement is ambiguous. > > How can that be ? > Partner opens a multi-2D. Please describe his hand. > > 4) They have an agreement, but it has been forgotten. > > > > That is the case I am talking of. Forgotten, uncertain, in > doubt. > > > Now let's take a look at Walter in each of these situations: > > > > 1) No agreement. Walter nevertheless knows, through general bridge > > knowledge that the call can mean A or B. Being a true follower of dWs, he > > picks one and states that as the partnership agreement. He gets lucky and > > actually explains his partner's intent. A victory for dWs! Not at all. > > Walter's partner is an ethical player. He knows that the pair has no > > agreement about the call, which can mean A or B. And yet here is Walter > > explaining the call as A. This is UI to Walter's partner. He now knows > > that Walter is taking his call as A through UI. So, being an ethical > > player, he must bid as though the real agreement was B, if it is at all a > > logical alternative. > > Sorry, he has already given the call the meaning A or B, by > bidding it with the hand he has (meanings A and B are far > enough apart). > You are confusing "intent" with "agreement", and compounding the error by using "meaning" to apply to both. A player cannot create an agreement by himself. An agreement consists of some sort of shared concurrence with a partner that a particular call has a particular meaning. I can intend anything I want with a call, but that does not make it an agreement, unless partner knows, via discussion, systemic understanding, past experience, etc., what I intend. If partner is forced to work it out through general bridge knowledge, my intent does not create an agreement. > > Walter's made-up explanation has caught him in a L16 > > quandary. Here is the real flaw in dWs. Even when the actual intent of the > > call is correctly explained, L16 prevents partner from playing it that way. > > No it doesn't. > Of course it does. Walter's partner has made a call that can be interpreted as A or B. He knows that there is no agreement, but is hoping that Walter interprets it as A. Then Walter goes and tells the opponents that the pair has an agreement that the call means A. Walter's statement is false, since there was no prior agreement to play the call as A. It is also UI to Walter's poor partner. The UI certainly suggests that followup calls based on the assumption that Walter is playing the call as A will be more successful than followup calls based on the assumption that Walter is playing the call as B. > > The dWs approach is the only way to virtually guarantee MI with an ethical > > partner. You can't make up agreements on the fly, Herman. Law 16 will bite > > you. > > > > Anyway, I don't believe the response "no agreement". > > > L16 and L40 may also bite Stephen, who should not be giving the opponents > > bridge lessons. At table 3, Donald properly said "no agreement" and > > offered no speculations. He is the only one who will get out of this > > without an adjustment. > > > > No, because I don't believe him. If the call can have such > different meanings as A and B, then the opponents are > entitled to know which one of them both it is. > So the partner of the multi-2D opener commits MI every time he lists the alternative meanings of the call? The opener only has one of the possible hands. Each time, the opponents are entitled to know which one it is? > > 2) No agreement, but experience on similar auctions. Tell the truth. The > > first words should be "no agreement". > > Why ? Experience is also disclosable. Why should one add > information that opponents are not entitled to ? > If there is past experience with the call in question, then it is disclosable, and may in fact create an agreement. We are talking about situations that have not occurred before, where a player is using information from other partnership agreements to determine the meaning of a call where there is no agreement. > > This gets followed with a description > > of the agreements that may apply to the hand (Eric described this better > > than I). Once the opponents have the same information about the relevant > > partnership agreements as either Walter or Steven, then disclosure has been > > fulfilled. Walter and Steven both postulate an agreement where none exists. > > Both may wind up with MI or UI adjustments. > > > > Again, I don't believe such a situation can exist in the > real world. Generalizing from existing agreements to novel situations is extremely common in bridge. > Since partner intended the call to mean B, "no agreement" is > not a coorect explanation anyway. > Partner's intent does not create an agreement. Agreements require the concurrence of both partners. Please write this on the chalkboard over and over until you understand this. > You are too far from real life to have a good discussion. > One of us is, anyway. > > 3) Ambiguous agreement. The call may actually mean either A or B by > > partnership agreement, with A occurring much more frequently than B. > What ? When have you ever seen such a thing. By the > footnote, the call has the meaning that corresponds to the > hand, unless there is proof to the contrary. Nothing > ambiguous about it. If you say that you have ambiguous > agreements, you are in fact lying ! > Oh dear. Let's go back to that multi-2D again. Do all of the hand types occur with equal frequency? Is it MI to describe all of the hand types, and say which ones occur most frequently? > > In > > this case, Stephen's explanation is correct, while Walter has made an > > incomplete disclosure. I'm assuming that Herman does not mean to apply dWs > > to this particular situation. > > > > Exactly. All of the above is fruitless search for something > to discredit me with. None of it applies to the case I am > discussing, which is below. > > > 4) Forgotten agreement. This is the only area where dWs may sometimes work. > > Thank you ! > > > Walter guesses an agreement and explains it. If it's the real partnership > > agreement, he wins, and an actual bridge result occurs. If he's wrong, the > > TD cleans up the mess of MI and UI. > > Indeed. > > > Stephen is expressing doubt, which is > > UI to partner, and also telling partner how he is taking the call, which is > > about to place partner in a nasty L16 situation. What happens if we try the > > simple truth: "I have forgotten our agreement. I suggest you summon the > > TD". This gets the TD to the table in time to repair the MI before it can > > damage the opponents, and puts the opponents on alert that partner has UI. > > Partner has the UI of doubt, but does not know how we are taking the call, > > which at least minimizes the effect of the UI. > > > > Well, "I have honestly forgotten, please ask my partner" is > a possibility. But not the one the dWs is giving as advice. > We are not trying to establish what the player should do, we > are discussing one particular piece of advice. This is > another type of advice. In the sense that it ensures > correct information, it may be better. But it also gives UI > to partner, and a lot of AnEI (Authorized but not Entitled > Information) to opponents. In that sense, it is a lot worse > than the dWs advice, agreed ? > It's a trade-off. [snip] > > You are still believing that MI is a great crime. It is > not. It does not even warrant a PP under the ordinary Laws, > and the measure is redress, not punishment. > That depends on the MI. Unintentional MI is a part of the game happens frequently and requires adjustment for damage. If it happens frequently (repeated failure to alerts, etc.), I will give a warning or a possible PP. If I see intentional MI, you'd better believe there's a PP, as well as possible Conduct and Ethics actions. [snip] > > > > The dWs involves representing a player's guess about the intent of partner's > > call as a partnership agreement, when in many cases that will not be > > correct. > > Well, what is the difference between a player who honestly > believes the agreement is A, and one who has doubt about it > ? > If the first is allowed to simply state "A", and not the > second, then are we not opening the door to lying to the > director afterwards. If we simply tell the truth about what we know (yes, there will be mistakes, but not intentional ones), how does this open the door to lying? I am far more concerned about dWs requirements for fabricated explanations and deliberate MI. >I follow the dWs, and don't express > doubt, but when pressed, I deny that I was in doubt all the > time! > When doubt is AnEI ! > I really hope that I am misunderstanding this. You create intentional MI and stick to it? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 21 08:01:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:01:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02446 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:01:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-234.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.234]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA07946; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:00:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001501bf2b8d$4db73a60$eab4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , , Subject: Re: Discussion of Procedure Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:31:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >} > >>} >I think that real laws changes are the only way to get rid of >>} >discussions about exactly how binding an "interpretation of the >>} >law with binding authority" is. >>} >>} +=+ I regard any such discussions as beating the air. >>} Each NCBO is in a contractual relationship with >>} the WBF to fulfil its undertaking to conform to >>} the WBF By-Laws and these expressly say that >>} the WBFLC "shall interpret" the laws. The 'shall' >>} is worthy of note. >>} >>} Where I am headed, if the WBFLC will come with, >>} is in the direction of setting up an intra-committee >>} system of consultation antecedent to publication >>} of a binding statement of the law and its effect, >>} subject by subject as it arises. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>} >>Jesper is probably too polite to point out the intransigence of an >>organization that he cannot control, but I am not. Marvin French >>has published to this list various commentaries from the ACBL that >>(IMO) clearly indicate that their interpretation of the relationship >>between the ACBL and the WBF differs from Grattan's view. Whether >>the ACBL (as an NCBO) "is in a contractual relationship with the WBF >>to fulfil its undertaking to conform to the WBF By-Laws" is moot if >>the ACBL chooses not to accept the WBFLC's interpretation of the >>Laws and the WBF does not sanction the ACBL >> >+=+ Not so much 'moot' as 'immaterial' would > you say? +=+ >>-- >+=+ The position is complex and extremely difficult >to resolve. Edgar wriggled every which way to >avoid addressing it. That was far easier when the >whole world was not comparing its experiences >via the internet. I appreciate that on both sides of >the deep blue divide there are some persons with >polarized stances, one way and the other. Some >such are prominently placed. My belief is that >nothing will be achieved by a descent into hard-line >exchanges of gunfire; needed is discussion and >exploration of ways in which progress can be >made - we need to talk, for which reason the >subject is no longer put away in a drawer. [Of >course, I am one of those old-fashioned Brits who >tends to carry a bag of candies in his pocket - >they work on gorillas but are not so good with >water buffalo, or rhino.] > Where do I want to go? I want to see whether >we can establish a mode of consultation that will >precede each fresh pronouncement - and which >hopefully will increase harmony. If we are to >succeed, the disposition to put off for ten years >what should be done now has to go. I am quite >prepared to see a return simultaneously to the >offering of options in the laws where a united >line is not agreed (thus transferring the >decision from law to regulation). I am not prepared to do that. It is remarkable to see that the most explicit statements saying that the ACBL should follow the WBFLC interpretations are from ACBL people. Wouldn't it be better to choose another address for those statements: Memphis! And if you do, take my word for it, the nicer you tell it the more effect it will have. To be honest: reading all these messages, even from Grattan now and then, I sometimes have the feeling that my WBF-ACBL world is different from that of some of yours. Tell me what the problem is. We had some discussions in Lille in which the ACBL approach differed from what I thought was or should be the WBF view. And we agreed without much dispute and certainly without anxiety. The fact is that the ACBL is a strong bridge organization, which has strong opinions about how to play our game. And in this soon closing century bridge communities were rather isolated and made their own decisions. I am sure that the ACBL in all those decisions and interpretations wanted to stay within the context of the laws. Now It is easy to say that they didn't succeed completely, but I remember that for years and decades people went to the ACBL to ask about law interpretations. Where else to go ? I want to minimize options in the laws, let us start to describe the differences and find out who really wants them. We need some time; be patient. And dear ACBL subscribers, don't try to convince me, but start friendly discussions within your League. This was the compromise that Edgar and I favoured. > ~Grattan~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 21 08:56:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:56:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02535 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:56:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp210-39.worldonline.nl [195.241.210.39]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA29353 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:56:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <015501bf33a2$306c84c0$27d2f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Should I have interfered ? Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:57:05 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have noticed the discussion on whether or not a TD should interfere with what is happening or has happened at a particular table. I hope this case from actual play may serve to start a new thread on the subject. Last Friday, I was TD at a club where three teams-of four matches were staged. I always try to divide my attention evenly between all tables (I hope this phrase will do), and at some moment I spotted the following happening. South was declarer in 4 S, and this what what was left after ten tricks, North (dummy) was on lead: S Q T H -- D 6 C -- S -- S J H 5 H 7 D 7 5 D 8 C -- C -- S 9 H 6 4 D -- C -- South, who had already made a shambles of his play by an attempt to lead from the wrong hand and by nearly revoking in earlier tricks, had nevertheless gathered nine out of the ten tricks played. He now said: "I lead D6 and make the rest of the tricks." When East started objecting, he said he was going to ruff - as a matter of fact, he showed the S9 during his claim as if he was going to play it in trick eleven. But when East (without showing her cards), pressed him an said that she still held SJ, South conceded one trick without further ado. What would you have done ? I don't want a discussion about whether playing HQ in trick twelve and HT in trick thirteen is normal play or not; please assume it is not, so that declarer would have brought in all remaining tricks if he had played on. You may or may not like to know that I was present at the table because dummy had temporarily left the table, and I had stepped in in order to play dummy's cards - oops, I mean to do with dummy's cards whatever declarer commanded, L45 :-)) Do you ever do so, or do you carefully avoid this mine field ? Just in order to prevent questions: I did not interfere with the concession. Jac From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 21 16:40:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 16:40:17 +1100 (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 QAA03345 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 16:40:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from solar.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca (solar [132.156.46.198]) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05973 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 00:14:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by solar.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id AAA28056; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 00:12:13 -0500 (EST) From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Message-Id: <199911210512.AAA28056@solar.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Subject: Full text of BW editorial on questions To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 00:12:13 -0500 (EST) 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 Finally located the Kaplan editorial. Well it makes reference to another one that I don't have, but it's entirely self-contained. August 1981. Note in addition that it's not just Kaplan. Jeff Rubens clearly agrees - or at least he did so then. And I agree that it's moot now what with Lille. And yes, subsequent rule changes or interpretations mean that some of his example actions are not permitted. Anyhow ... To the Editor: In the March, 1981, issue you state. "Thus, the laws seem to both state and intend that you may ask for a review even though it is for partner's benefit." I would think that Section B1 of Part II of the proprieties would apply in this case, just as it would if you asked for an explanation of an opponent's call because you felt that your partner didn't know what it meant. Admittedly, from director's point of view, it is almost impossible to prove that an opponent asked for a review to straighten out partner's misunderstanding. However, as an ethical player I have always felt that I could not straighten partner out whenever he did not know the meaning of a bid or, I thought, had misheard the bidding. Wouldn't the Proprieties take precedence here? Charles M. McCracken We do not agree that Proprieties II, B1 applies, since that outlaws "communication between partners... effected through ... questions asked"; in asking for a review, there is usually no such communication. 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*. You open one spaded and partner responds with a forcing one notrump - you Alert, at which point partner looks confused. You rebid two clubs and partner, at his turn, demands a review. What's going on? Very likely, partner has failed to hear your opening; likely, he has a notrump *opening*, instead of a response. This likelihood, however flows from partner's manner, and from his asking for a review. So the information is extraneous, improper. In that same situation, partner, who did indeed intend to open one notrump rather than to respond with that bid, is fully entitled to base his next action on his new-found knowledge of what the auction has actually been. He need not treat your two-club bid as Stayman; he may, for instance, leap to three notrump. You, though, are barred from using *your* new-found knowledge of partner's strength, as by making a slam try over his three notrump. Partner's information, from the *reply*, is legitimate; yours, from the *asking*, is tainted. 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 meaning? 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 his own, and he is unrepentant. Here is an instance from the '67 Bermuda Bowl, where Kaplan-Kay were playing Belladonna- Avarelli. The Italians used the Roman Club (a system Kaplan had written a book about ; Kay knew only the bare bones), and their Roman auction went, with no interference; one diamond by Avarelli, one spade response, two-club rebid by Avarelli *after considerable anguished hesitation*, raise to three clubs, all pass. At this point Belladonna and Kaplan knew beyond all doubt that Avarelli held a bare minimum hand with five weakish diamonds and four good clubs. Systemically, the two-club rebid promised *five* cards in the suit, but Roman provides no good second bid for five-diamond, four-club hands, unless the diamonds are husky (two diamonds) or unless the opener has some extra strength (one notrump). Hence Avarelli's reluctance at his second turn, a reluctance that was accurately interpreted (no other explanation of the hesitation was conceivable, once Avarelli passed three clubs) by the other two players at the table who were experienced with Roman's problems. However, the fourth player at the table, Kay, knew nothing of this; he would expect declared to hold five or more clubs, possibly with short diamonds. So Kaplan asked Belladonna, "How many clubs does Walter promise?" "Five," Giorgio replied, accurately if not helpfully. "Could he bid that way with five weak diamonds, four clubs?" "Yes, that's an exception - Walter *could* have that." said he, repressing a smile (knowing absolutely that Walter did have that, and knowing that Kaplan knew). "Couldn't he bid one notrump with five-four?" "Yes, but only if he had 15 pts. or so," replied Giorgio, grinning infectuously. All four players laughed. Fine! Kay now knew what he was entitled to know, and both sides were back to even, and everyone was happy, and Kaplan has never felt so much as a pang of guilt. After all, he did not transmit any partnership message to Kay. He did not communicate *with* his partner (as he would have were he to have posed a series of questions about Belladonna's spade bid when hold a fistful of spades). He merely saw to it that the enemy communicated *to* his partner the information that was partner's right to have. What should Kaplan have done instead - waited until play ended, and afterwards, if the Italians had scored well, go to committee and allege that he had been damaged, that his side would have defended better if Kay had been properly informed? Oh, sure! Even if the committee judged that Belladonna was responsible for volunteering an explanation of partner's huddle-club rebid (quite a novel proposition!), and even if the Americans were able to demonstrate to a committee specifically how the defense had been adversely affected by Kay's misapprehension (and this is hard to do), how on earth would Kaplan answer, when someone on the committee said to him. "*You* know the Roman System - how come you kept silent? Maybe you were after a double shot: a good result, otherwise a good protest"? Or perhaps Kaplan should have called the director before the opening lead to complain of Belladonna's "infraction" in failing to explain about the huddle-club rebid. That would be effective, no matter what the director ruled, since Kay, no fool he, would then ask appropriate questions himself. Only, handling it that way would surely poison the atmosphere at the table. No thanks, says Kaplan. If he had it all to do over, he'd do the same again. In fact, he has *done* so again, often. And will do so in the 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. A closely analogous legal position: Suppose partner has the lead, late in the defense against a four-spade contract; he is thinking, thinking ... Lord knows what about, since you have three tricks in, and you know partner has the setting trick to cash. May you say, "We have book, partner"? Certainly not! That would be illegal communication. "It is a breach of propriety to call attention ... to the number of tricks still required for success," is what the law book says. In contrast, suppose you look over and see that partner has a trick turned wrong. May you call *this* to his attention, lest he later misplay as a result of a faulty trick count? Yes, certainly! "Any player may request a card pointed incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction," says the good book. To see that your partner has correct information available - about trick count, about the previous calls in the auction, about the meaning of enemy calls - is proper and sensible care, not improper partnership communication. Another analogy: Partner shows out on the first round of hearts, and you ask, "No heart partner?" To the extent that you are concerned lest he have revoked, your question is proper care. To the extent that you convey the message that partner's heart void gives declarer unexpected heart length, your question is improper communication. If your partner can only react to your question by following suit - or by hearing the real auction, or by learning what an opponent's bid meant, or by turning his played card correctly -- your asking is proper. If, instead, partner receives a message that (as Law 16 puts it) "May suggest a call, lead or plan of play," then, and only then, have you communicated unauthorized information. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 21 18:34:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 18:34:35 +1100 (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 SAA03492 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 18:34:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-33-239.s239.tnt8.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.33.239]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id CAA29770 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 02:34:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002601bf33f2$9319b160$ef21accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 02:32:32 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 4:20 AM Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > I can remember (with great embarrassment) an episode from my first time at a > > bridge tournament. My partner made a call that could have had a natural or > > an artificial meaning. I had no idea what he intended. So, thinking myself > > clever, I said "alert". I chose an agreement, like a good follower of dWs. > > My partner now knew how I was taking his bid, and our auction proceded > > accordingly. Neither of us knew how illegal our actions were (I won't say > > unethical, since we didn't know any better). > > > > And they never checked his hand afterwards ? Which should > have revealed that his intention was different from your > explanation ? Then you were lucky ! And unethical. Unethical? I had followed dWs practice perfectly. I chose a meaning for the call about which I was uncertain, exactly as you have been telling people to do. If you think what I did then was unethical, why are you still advising people to do it? You're right though. If done by someone who knows better it is indeed unethical, and it's certainly illegal regardless of intent. Since even you appear to think this, and since we had followed dWs perfectly, perhaps it's time for you to reevaluate dWs? Incidentally, you didn't ask what partner's intent was. He had hoped I would take the bid as artificial, which I did. No looking at hands would have shown anything, since I had actually explained his intention. However, I had not explained our agreement. We looked through the book we were learning the system from after the event, and found out we were both wrong, and that in the system we were playing the bid should have been natural. So, he misbid, I misexplained, and he used the UI from my misexplanation. Not one of our proudest moments. What I should have done was to keep my mouth shut, and if asked about partner's call said "no agreement". What partner should have done was to bid as though I responded to his call *with the natural meaning*, since the knowledge that I was taking his call as artificial was UI. But we were novices at the time, and neither of us knew that. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 21 23:39:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:39:21 +1100 (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 XAA04072 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:39:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.179] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11pWFs-0006xU-00; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 12:38:09 +0000 Message-ID: <000401bf341d$3c540b20$b35208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , , Subject: Re: Discussion of Procedure Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:38:36 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 ; FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 20 November 1999 21:01 Subject: Re: Discussion of Procedure >> Where do I want to go? I want to see whether >>we can establish a mode of consultation that will >>precede each fresh pronouncement - and which >>hopefully will increase harmony. If we are to >>succeed, the disposition to put off for ten years >>what should be done now has to go. I am quite >>prepared to see a return simultaneously to the >>offering of options in the laws where a united >>line is not agreed (thus transferring the >>decision from law to regulation). > >I am not prepared to do that. It is remarkable to see that the most explicit >statements saying that the ACBL should follow the WBFLC interpretations are >from ACBL people. Wouldn't it be better to choose another address for those >statements: Memphis! And if you do, take my word for it, the nicer you tell >it the more effect it will have. >To be honest: reading all these messages, even from Grattan now and then, I >sometimes have the feeling that my WBF-ACBL world is different from that of >some of yours. Tell me what the problem is. We had some discussions in >Lille in which the ACBL approach differed from what I thought was or should >be the WBF view. And we agreed without much dispute and certainly without >anxiety. >> +=+ Certainly, ton, I have not expressed anything in my texts on this question as other than opinion and potential. No thought of mine being the only possible solution, since we both know that the eventual path we are to follow will be settled by corporate committee decision. It is true that decisions in Lausanne were sensibly discussed and there was no heat in finally agreeing a position. This does not mean, I think, that subsequently, even with a majority from Zone 2 throughout our Lille meetings, there has been acceptance of those decisions worldwide - as theory would presuppose. As I understand, the ACBL as such has retained a different position on certain items. When Edgar and I faced the problem we agreed that the path of compromise was to provide in the laws for variation of treatment by inclusion of 'options'. That avoided head to head collisions; such instances may be found (inter alia) in 12C3, in 61B and in the footnote to 93B3. All I am saying is that we found a need for a cushion of flexibility and it would not surprise me if the need continues, since the WBFLC may still have to cope with irresistible arguments and immovable positions. In that event the committee will just have to choose the shape of its cushion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 22 05:18:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 05:18:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA05097 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 05:18:04 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id 5.0.8769d09f (4203); Sun, 21 Nov 1999 13:17:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.8769d09f.2569912b@aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 13:17:15 EST Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, john@probst.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/19/99 10:38:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL writes: > that is the harm blml can do. But we might still agree. I am not suggesting > that the TD should interfer during play. The opponents are entitled to > discover the revoke themselves and to collect the penalty tricks. But if the > revoke goes unnoticed, the TD should find out what would have happened > without the revoke and restore equity. > > ton A very important point. Interfering in the play is participating by the TD and should not be done. Waiting for the player's legal actions of active play in the enforcement of penalties to expire, and then restoring equity is what Law 81 C 6 is all about. Of course, there are BLML experts who will immediately disagree. If so, please give this a new thread name. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 22 06:55:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 06:55:23 +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 GAA05280 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 06:55:15 +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 OAA01957 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:55:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA10256 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:55:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:55:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911211955.OAA10256@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full text of BW editorial on questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > August 1981. > from the '67 Bermuda Bowl, where Kaplan-Kay were playing Belladonna- > Avarelli. The Italians used the Roman Club (a system Kaplan had written > a book about ; Kay knew only the bare bones), and their Roman auction > went, with no interference; one diamond by Avarelli, one spade response, > two-club rebid by Avarelli *after considerable anguished hesitation*, > raise to three clubs, all pass. Without commenting on the main issue -- about which the editorial speaks for itself -- it is interesting to see how much standards of bidding have changed since 1967. Today, I would expect any competent, experienced pair to make the 2C rebid _in tempo_. People are expected to know the holes in their system and avoid letting those holes affect their tempo. By and large, they succeed. Yet in 1967, two of the finest players the game has ever seen couldn't manage it. We have come a very long way in the right direction, and despite all our complaints, it seems worth pointing that out. Now back to our regularly scheduled debate... :-) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 22 08:17:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:17:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05510 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:17:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn43p12.ozemail.com.au [210.84.1.77]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA11246 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:17:23 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991122081741.007d3e20@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:17:41 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Please repeat your hesitation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The bidding goes: South West North East 3S pass 4S long hesitation..pass pass double all pass Director please! This looks easy. E-W are a very inexperienced pair so give them a bit of a chat about L16. Play continues and call me back to examine the entrails at the end of the hand. West leads, dummy tracks and then East discovers he has taken his hand from the next board. OK I say, just take your new hand and as long as you can repeat your hesitation after 4S, I think we can just play it out and get a result. 4S is the unanimous contract around the room, never doubled, going usually 1 off, but sometimes 2 off as at this table. I have no trouble ruling the contract back to 4S -2 for about 70% to EW. What score should they get if East says, 'I don't have anything to hesitate over on my correct hand' :)) ? Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 22 08:40:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:40:18 +1100 (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 IAA05609 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:40:10 +1100 (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 11pei6-000EQT-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 21:39:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:25:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin References: <19991119170416.95392.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19991119170416.95392.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: Ed Reppert >> >>At 10:20 AM -0500 11/17/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >Please Ed, read everything : >> >>I do. I don't always understand everything I read, though. That's why I'm >>here - trying to learn. :-) >> >Ain't we all :-). > >>Okay. But you still haven't answered my question - what constitutes proof? > >In this case, the footnote to L75D2 gives the answer to that: > > the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather > than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. > >The proof required is "evidence to the contrary". I find this a very strange sentence. Proof is not required, as can clearly be seen from the Law you have quoted. "Evidence to the contrary" is, but that is not proof. The term "Compelling Evidence" [CE] was coined by someone to have a term for the level of evidence required - but it is nowhere near proof. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 22 11:10:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:10:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [212.115.192.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05901 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:10:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from poimms-1530 (kpn-di147.zeelandnet.nl [212.115.197.21]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA25397 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 01:10:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <017401bf347d$286187e0$15c573d4@poimms-1530> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 01:03:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: David Stevenson Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Datum: vrijdag 19 november 1999 20:44 Onderwerp: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? >Kooijman, A. wrote: > >>An argument my peers used trying to convince me that I was wrong, was that >>the consequence of doing so, meant that each table should have a TD to watch >>the game. Otherwise some were disadvantaged above others. Then I tried the >>argument David uses too: the TD can't solve all the problems in the world >>but he should solve all the problems he meets (and my examples included >>police and fines etc). But now David seems to suggest that even within the >>group of irregularities the TD becomes aware of he can choose which one to >>penalize and which not. If that is his opinion I don't agree. When not >>alerting an alertable call gives a penalty only once in a while, the TD >>using his discretionary powers, we are going the wrong way. We need >>consistency. The penalty is not given to educate the field, but to have the >>players following procedures we deem necessary for good proceedings. And the >>conditions should tell when and when not to give a penalty. So I agree with >>David that you don't need to penalize all non-alerts to be able to penalize >>non-alerts, but the distinction should be clear. Using the approach to >>penalize when the non alert caused problems for the opponents, seems >>reasonable. Fits also with the idea that when the TD is not called there is >>no damage done. > > Consider two cases. You are called to the table because of a non- >alert. This has caused some trouble but you finally decide no damage. > >Case 1. The non-alert is by two elderly ladies who clearly do not >understand alerting. > >Case 2. The non-alert is by Herman De Wael playing with Grattan >Endicott who says he forgot. > > You are saying that we must be consistent and fine both cases or >neither? I do not agree. I might fine in Case 2, but not in Case 1 >unless I had previously warned them a couple of times. In my view that >is acceptable TD judgement. > > In may own way I am being consistent. I am fining people who >transgress above a certain level. That level depends on their perceived >abilities, my experience of that pair, and the level of competition. >Two equal level pairs in similar circumstances will be treated the same >- and that is as much consistency as I believe to be desirable. > MS: I believe you mean the same (see also CS 19/11 extra explenation). Case 1 get a PP in form of a warning that it should have been alerted and the expextation they will do so the next time or else..... Case 2 might also get a warning but has a greater possibilty the PP will be in points. My first instructor in the world of bridge rules had a quit clear view on PP's. He said " a PP in the form of a warning has more effect on most players than taking away some points. You can always do that if they don't take the warning seriously". From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 22 11:10:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:10:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [212.115.192.194]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05903 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:10:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from poimms-1530 (kpn-di147.zeelandnet.nl [212.115.197.21]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA25391 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 01:10:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <017301bf347d$260e7020$15c573d4@poimms-1530> From: "Marcel Schoof" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Should I have interfered ? Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:55:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk MS: Yes, I also play dummy's cards when he's gone. But as being dummy you haven't noticed that all remaining tricks are for declarer. As a TD you're not at the table. Interfering at this point would be unproper. It's the players responsibility (in this case, the responsibility from the missing partner) to correct it. Even when i'm just looking at the table (as a spectator, not a TD) i won't interfere. I believe that this brings back the problem that you must have a scribe at every table to look at every situation at the end of the round. I don't believe that conseding a trick which you could have won is anything different from not playing an Ace on the last chance to make it. It gives opp a trick which the would not get by normal play. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Jac Fuchs Aan: BLML Datum: zondag 21 november 1999 0:04 Onderwerp: Should I have interfered ? >I have noticed the discussion on whether or not a TD should interfere with >what is happening or has happened at a particular table. I hope this case >from actual play may serve to start a new thread on the subject. >Last Friday, I was TD at a club where three teams-of four matches were >staged. I always try to divide my attention evenly between all tables (I >hope this >phrase will do), and at some moment I spotted the following happening. >South was declarer in 4 S, and this what what was left after ten tricks, >North (dummy) was on lead: > S Q T > H -- > D 6 > C -- >S -- S J >H 5 H 7 >D 7 5 D 8 >C -- C -- > S 9 > H 6 4 > D -- > C -- >South, who had already made a shambles of his play by an attempt to lead >from the wrong hand and by nearly revoking in earlier tricks, had >nevertheless gathered nine out of the ten tricks played. He now said: "I >lead D6 and make the rest of the tricks." When East started objecting, he >said he was going to ruff - as a matter of fact, he showed the S9 during >his claim as if he was going to play it in trick eleven. But when East >(without showing her cards), pressed him an said that she still held SJ, >South conceded one trick without further ado. > >What would you have done ? I don't want a discussion about whether playing >HQ in trick twelve and HT in trick thirteen is normal play or not; please >assume it is not, so that declarer would have brought in all remaining >tricks if he had played on. > >You may or may not like to know that I was present at the table because >dummy had temporarily left the table, and I had stepped in in order to play >dummy's cards - oops, I mean to do with dummy's cards whatever declarer >commanded, L45 :-)) Do you ever do so, or do you carefully avoid this mine >field ? > >Just in order to prevent questions: I did not interfere with the concession. > >Jac > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 22 11:48:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:48:14 +1100 (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 LAA05968 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:48:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from p2ds06a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.102.46] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11phdm-0006DX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 16:47:34 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Please repeat your hesitation Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:49:06 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3483$61121b80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Tony Musgrove To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, November 21, 1999 9:35 PM Subject: Please repeat your hesitation >The bidding goes: > >South West North East >3S pass 4S long hesitation..pass >pass double all pass >Director please! > >This looks easy. E-W are a very inexperienced pair so give them a bit of a >chat about L16. Play continues and call me back to examine the entrails at >the end of the hand. West leads, dummy tracks and then East discovers he >has taken his hand from the next board. OK I say, just take your new hand >and as long as you can repeat your hesitation after 4S, I think we can just >play it out and get a result. > >4S is the unanimous contract around the room, never doubled, going usually >1 off, but sometimes 2 off as at this table. I have no trouble ruling the >contract back to 4S -2 for about 70% to EW. > >What score should they get if East says, 'I don't have anything to hesitate >over on my correct hand' :)) ? Law 17D applies during the auction. In this instance the auction is ended. There have been three passes, the opening lead has been faced, and dummy has been spread. I do not think we can go back. The board is surely unplayable, and Law12C1 tells us 60% to N/S and 40% to E/W.and Law 90 allows for a penalty. If East had discovered that he had the incorrect cards during the auction then I suspect we would have to decide whether the lack of a hesitation changes the call in any "significant" way, and I am sure that the manner of making the call is significant. Apply Law 12C1. Had the board to which East's first hand belonged been played? I am sure there are those of us who would rule that a bid, or a pass without a hesitation, would fulfill "if the call differs _in any way_ requirement of Law 17D. I wonder how many would disagree. I think the TD should read the Law to the players, should place emphasis on _in any way_ but should not instruct the player to repeat his hesitation. The original hesitation over 4S did convey certain information to West. The knowledge he has of his partner's hand must be seen to be the same on the second board as on the first. Pass with a hesitation apply Law 16 if West finds an unacceptable call/ Pass without a hesitation apply Law 12C1. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 22 12:35:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:35:03 +1100 (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 MAA06050 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:34:54 +1100 (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 11piNE-000Faq-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 01:34:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 01:29:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> , "Kooijman, A." writes > >> > >> >Then somewhere in the 80ies (for laws and years) I found a >> law saying that >> >TD's need to solve/rule in case of any irregularity they >> become aware of. >> >Then I introduced the live-exercise where a kibitzer comes >> to the TD telling >> >him that declarer made a revoke and won an extra trick >> without anybody >> >noticing. And I told my pupils, and the Dutch Bridge >> Federation, that the >> >solution was not to throw the kibitzer out of the room, but >> to go to the >> >table and to establish the facts in this case. And if the >> revoke occurred >> >to restore equity using 64C. >> >> I spotted a revoke as I was passing a table at the YC some >> time ago and >> corrected it. The blml feeling was that I should not have interfered, >> and indeed I now don't. chs john > >that is the harm blml can do. But we might still agree. I am not suggesting >that the TD should interfer during play. The opponents are entitled to >discover the revoke themselves and to collect the penalty tricks. But if the >revoke goes unnoticed, the TD should find out what would have happened >without the revoke and restore equity. > 81C6 So you wander back and they have just moved to the next table. You explain there was a revoke and they say "No there wasn't", and you say "I saw it". "How to win friends and influence people" Part 1. "How to make sure that someone else will be directing there next week" 64C I will deem they are sufficiently compensated. next hand please. I can see why one *ought* to restore equity. I can also see four perfectly content bridge players that I'm about to stir up. They are content with their equity. Why the heck should I upset their equilibrium? Since I can deem what I like, I do. 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 22 12:38:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:38:33 +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 MAA06074 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:38:24 +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 11piQh-000Pzz-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 01:38:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:14:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? References: <199911192302.SAA08739@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199911192302.SAA08739@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >About a year or two ago, David S. and I had some correspondence about >procedural penalties. Some of it was on BLML, but there may have >been some private messages, too. In the end (perhaps astonishing >long-time BLML readers), we actually agreed on a set of guidelines >for when PP's should be given. > >David: is the summary message on your web site, or do you have it? If >not, I'll look for it. As I recall, the main items were that the >player concerned ought to have known better, and that the PP would >serve to educate the player involved, but I think there were some >other considerations. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/procpens.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 Mon Nov 22 12:38:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:38:34 +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 MAA06075 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:38:24 +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 11piQh-000Pzy-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 01:38:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:08:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991119163943.0074a068@pop.mindspring.com> <001601bf32f4$ebf0d060$9c9f140c@momsputer> In-Reply-To: <001601bf32f4$ebf0d060$9c9f140c@momsputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: >Having read the example below, if the person who wanted to stop his partner, >instead of asking, just picked up the opponents convention card to see what >they were playing. Could not partner, being curious as to what his partner >needed to know, also pick up the card at his turn and gain the same >information??? Certainly. Picking up the oppos' CC for the sole purpose of informing partner is just as illegal and in my view reprehensible. Communication with partner should be by calls and plays, not by other methods. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 22 15:23:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:23:21 +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 PAA06325 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:23:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-52-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.52]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA21719; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:22:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991121232017.008563e0@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:20:17 -0500 To: "Marcel Schoof" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? In-Reply-To: <017401bf347d$286187e0$15c573d4@poimms-1530> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:03 AM 11/22/99 +0100, Marcel Schoof wrote: >My first >instructor in the world of bridge rules had a quit clear view on PP's. He >said " a PP in the form of a warning has more effect on most players than >taking away some points. You can always do that if they don't take the >warning seriously". It also has the advantage that it won't cause trouble if a confused TD gives an incorrect warning. For example, if a TD tells you to alert something that you believe is not alertable even after hearing the TD's explanation, you'll have to appeal if there is a 3-IMP penalty imposed, but you can just ignore a warning for subsequent sessions. (I have had this happen on a few occasions.) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 22 19:03:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:03:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06608 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:03:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.4] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11poR0-000FdH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:02:51 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01bf34bf$f17f1a60$045108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:01:46 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL ; john@probst.demon.co.uk ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 21 November 1999 18:34 Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? >In a message dated 11/19/99 10:38:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, >A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL writes: > >> that is the harm blml can do. But we might still agree. I am not suggesting >> that the TD should interfer during play. The opponents are entitled to >> discover the revoke themselves and to collect the penalty tricks. But if >the >> revoke goes unnoticed, the TD should find out what would have happened >> without the revoke and restore equity. >> >> ton > >A very important point. Interfering in the play is participating by the TD >and should not be done. Waiting for the player's legal actions of active >play in the enforcement of penalties to expire, and then restoring equity is >what Law 81 C 6 is all about. Of course, there are BLML experts who will >immediately disagree. If so, please give this a new thread name. > +=+ Goodness gracious me! We three all. Mind you the thread has just made me read 81C6 again; lo and behold! more sloppy drafting! We all know it means "becomes aware within the correction period", do we not? Now just read it again and think "rectify an error or irregularity within the correction period" and take a look at that comma. Or maybe you think the second of these meanings is the one? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 22 23:49:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:36:05 +1100 (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 XAA07176 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:35:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA28531; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:35:47 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JIN1NZ3M2M009OL8@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:34:24 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:34:24 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:34:22 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Bad score by MI, or what? To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A3@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:Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk] > Verzonden: maandag 22 november 1999 9:02 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? > > >> that is the harm blml can do. But we might still agree. I am not > suggesting > >> that the TD should interfer during play. The opponents > are entitled to > >> discover the revoke themselves and to collect the penalty > tricks. But if > >the > >> revoke goes unnoticed, the TD should find out what would > have happened > >> without the revoke and restore equity. > >> > >> ton > > > >A very important point. Interfering in the play is > participating by the TD > >and should not be done. Waiting for the player's legal > actions of active > >play in the enforcement of penalties to expire, and then > restoring equity > is > >what Law 81 C 6 is all about. Of course, there are BLML > experts who will > >immediately disagree. If so, please give this a new thread name. > > > +=+ Goodness gracious me! We three all. Mind you > the thread has just made me read 81C6 again; > lo and behold! more sloppy drafting! We all know > it means "becomes aware within the correction > period", do we not? Now just read it again and > think "rectify an error or irregularity within the > correction period" and take a look at that comma. > Or maybe you think the second of these > meanings is the one? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > In practise there is no difference, since the TD should act immediately after becoming aware of the irregularity. You are not trying to suggest that this example is supporting the English style of never using comma's at all, are you? Thinking of it, it is your language that causes all these problems with multi-interpretable regulations! ton From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 22 23:59:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:59:32 +1100 (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 XAA07218 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:59:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA30525; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:59:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JIN2IBVPF8009JH8@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:58:08 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:58:04 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:58:02 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: 81C6 & 64C To: "'John Probst'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A4@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 So Kojak found at least one blml-expert fitting in his description. ton > 81C6 So you wander back and they have just moved to the next > table. You > explain there was a revoke and they say "No there wasn't", and you say > "I saw it". "How to win friends and influence people" Part 1. Try to become a politician in your hometown, there you need that kind of qualities. ton "How to make sure that someone else will be directing there next week" There is no need for that. Your players will love you. For the first time in many years the pair with the best results during the evening will win the event (with 2 Average-minuses due to applying law 25B) and not the pair who made the most unnoticed revokes. ton > > 64C I will deem they are sufficiently compensated. next hand please. Did we give you this expensive education and a lot of free advises to sit at the bar as soon and as long as possible? Making friends perhaps? ton > > I can see why one *ought* to restore equity. I can also see four > perfectly content bridge players that I'm about to stir up. They are > content with their equity. Why the heck should I upset their > equilibrium? Since I can deem what I like, I do. But a good TD can't. Who told you this? Not Kaplan this time; may be his appeal committees could, but not the TD. ton > chs john > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 01:49:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:45 +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 BAA07507 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21155 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38393FAE.B83E8B6B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:05:50 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk third reply. Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > 3) They have an agreement, but the agreement is ambiguous. > > > > How can that be ? > > > > Partner opens a multi-2D. Please describe his hand. > The agreement can be fully explained. I thought you were talking about something completely different. An agreement cannot be ambiguous, can it? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 02:49:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07501 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21149 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38393F6F.98E05AB3@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:04:47 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk second reply. Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > 2) They have no agreement, but are able to make an educated guess based > on > > > similar partnership auctions where agreements exist > > > > Then they have an agreement. > > > > No, they have partnership experience that may be relevant to the auction, > but that does not constitute an agreement. > Well, the TD will rule as if there was an agreement. Let's stop this pointless argument. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 03:38:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:34:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07542 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21198 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38394436.A38CB6AE@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:25:10 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk seventh reply. Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > Why ? Experience is also disclosable. Why should one add > > information that opponents are not entitled to ? > > > > If there is past experience with the call in question, then it is > disclosable, and may in fact create an agreement. We are talking about > situations that have not occurred before, where a player is using > information from other partnership agreements to determine the meaning of a > call where there is no agreement. > You are talking about that, I am not. Sorry. Drop it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 03:49:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:34:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07543 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21213 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38394441.F2C59444@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:25:21 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk eighth reply. Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > Since partner intended the call to mean B, "no agreement" is > > not a coorect explanation anyway. > > > > Partner's intent does not create an agreement. Agreements require the > concurrence of both partners. Please write this on the > chalkboard over and over until you understand this. > When a player bids hearts when he has spades, he is at least hoping that partner has the same idea. That will be ruled against. The Director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absense of evidence to the contrary. Please write that on the chalkboard. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 04:44:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:34:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07531 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21174 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383941C5.B4EB1AED@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:14:45 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk sixth reply Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > No, because I don't believe him. If the call can have such > > different meanings as A and B, then the opponents are > > entitled to know which one of them both it is. > > > > So the partner of the multi-2D opener commits MI every time he lists the > alternative meanings of the call? The opener only has one of the possible > hands. Each time, the opponents are entitled to know which one it is? > We are not talking about an agreement where a call can show hands A or B, but an agreement where a hand shows B. Bad counter-example, and counter-productive. I am not going to comment, as it would lead us too far off the track. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 04:49:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:34:22 +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 BAA07568 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:34:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21249 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38394895.A737CA6D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:43:49 +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: A claim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Belgian first division. Q J 10 8 3 2 K Q J 7 4 A 5 A 9 K 7 6 5 4 A 9 2 - 10 7 4 9 8 6 5 2 A Q 9 7 6 K J 4 - 10 8 6 5 3 K Q J 3 10 8 3 2 (hands turned to put declarer south) contract, five hearts doubled Lead : Ace of hearts, followed by the Ace of clubs and a small heart. East had thrown the five of diamonds on the heart (if you can't follow suit, follow colour) and declarer probably did not notice. While East is thinking on the third trick, South claims, saying, "I ruff three clubs". She honoustly admits having forgotten the H9. Ruling ? (for the feminists, I have used the correct pronoun. The player was indeed female. I am proud to say that in Belgium, Lady players are competing at the highest level. Veronique is not alone, there are at least 4 other women in our first division, and one is a well deserved member of the national team). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 05:24:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:41 +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 BAA07498 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21122 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38393F3E.750DBC29@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:03:58 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I will make a few different messages in replying to : Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > 1) They have no agreement > > > > I don't buy this. They have at least an agreement to keep > > everything undiscussed along general lines. > > > > This is a standard that is not possible for most players. In fact, it's > probably not possible for any players. New situations appear. That's part > of the beauty of the game. When they do appear, we may not have a > partnership agreement that covers them. > Of course, but please remember that the main topic of this thread was not "no agreement", but rather "doubt". I have often said that there can be cases where "no agreement" is correct. We are trying to establish what should happen when a player is in doubt about the agreement. OK? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 05:24:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:34:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07544 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21224 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38394449.BB605FAE@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:25:29 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ninth reply. Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > You are still believing that MI is a great crime. It is > > not. It does not even warrant a PP under the ordinary Laws, > > and the measure is redress, not punishment. > > > > That depends on the MI. Unintentional MI is a part of the game happens > frequently and requires adjustment for damage. If it happens frequently > (repeated failure to alerts, etc.), I will give a warning or a possible PP. > > If I see intentional MI, you'd better believe there's a PP, as well as > possible Conduct and Ethics actions. > Well, the only possible MI I am talking of is the fact that the player omits to tell his opponents that he is uncertain. Which is not even MI in my opinion. Is it in yours ? The other MI, the fact that player has guessed wrong, is clearly unintentional, as you put it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 05:49:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:34:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07535 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21188 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38394421.AA1C1600@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:24:49 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk firth reply Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > No it doesn't. > > > > Of course it does. Walter's partner has made a call that can be interpreted > as A or B. He knows that there is no agreement, but is hoping that Walter > interprets it as A. Then Walter goes and tells the opponents that the pair > has an agreement that the call means A. Walter's statement is false, since > there was no prior agreement to play the call as A. It is also UI to > Walter's poor partner. The UI certainly suggests that followup calls based > on the assumption that Walter is playing the call as A will be more > successful than followup calls based on the assumption that Walter is > playing the > call as B. > Drop the no agreement angle. A player intends his call to signify A, and now he hears that his partner interprets is as A. Yes that is UI, but it happens all the time. It introduces a good feeling to hear your partner explain your calls correctly, but that is hardly ever punished, is it ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 06:07:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:34:19 +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 BAA07558 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:34:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21234 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38394450.4DFD3A56@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:25:36 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk tenth reply. Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > The dWs involves representing a player's guess about the intent of > partner's > > > call as a partnership agreement, when in many cases that will not be > > > correct. > > > > Well, what is the difference between a player who honestly > > believes the agreement is A, and one who has doubt about it > > ? > > If the first is allowed to simply state "A", and not the > > second, then are we not opening the door to lying to the > > director afterwards. > > If we simply tell the truth about what we know (yes, there will be mistakes, > but not intentional ones), how does this open the door to lying? I am far > more concerned about dWs requirements for fabricated explanations and > deliberate MI. > Well, that is for lesson two, isn't it ? > >I follow the dWs, and don't express > > doubt, but when pressed, I deny that I was in doubt all the > > time! > > When doubt is AnEI ! > > > > I really hope that I am misunderstanding this. You create intentional MI > and stick to it? > > Hirsch What MI ? Please Hirsh, don't reply any more. You have obviously misunderstood everything I am trying to say. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 06:13:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:53 +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 BAA07523 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21163 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3839410A.2C3AF970@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:11:38 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk fourth reply Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, he has already given the call the meaning A or B, by > > bidding it with the hand he has (meanings A and B are far > > enough apart). > > > > You are confusing "intent" with "agreement", and compounding the error by > using "meaning" to apply to both. > Well, it is the Laws that make up the different words. I have often said that the Law should be clearer if the word agreement were changed to systemic meaning. You don't have to have agreed on something for the meaning of a call to be ruled as an agreement. I am not confusing intent and agreement, you are confused in trying to understand my point. Intent is the apparent meaning of the call, the intention of the bidder. Agreement is a word used in the Laws. I am saying that by the footnote, the TD will rule that the intent equals the agreement. > A player cannot create an agreement by himself. An agreement consists of > some sort of shared concurrence with a partner that a particular call has a > particular meaning. I can intend anything I want with a call, but that does > not make it an agreement, unless partner knows, via discussion, systemic > understanding, past experience, etc., what I intend. If partner is forced > to work it out through general bridge knowledge, my intent does not create > an agreement. > Yes it does. You have agreed to use general bridge knowledge to determine the meaning of the call. If you intend to mean something with your call, you are hoping that partner is on the same wavelength. Incomplete agreements, but agreements nevertheless. Or ruled as if they are agreements by the footnote, which comes down to the same thing. Besides, we are not talking of "no agreement", but of "doubt". I am fairly certain what my call means, and I can even prove it. But my partner is not certain. What shall he tell the opponents. Please drop the "no agreement" angle from our discussions. Let this topic rest. Please. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 06:47:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:34:19 +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 BAA07552 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:33:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.105]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21240 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:33:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38394631.B2AC186F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:33:37 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <002601bf33f2$9319b160$ef21accf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 4:20 AM > Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation > > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > > I can remember (with great embarrassment) an episode from my first time > at a > > > bridge tournament. My partner made a call that could have had a natural > or > > > an artificial meaning. I had no idea what he intended. So, thinking > myself > > > clever, I said "alert". I chose an agreement, like a good follower of > dWs. > > > My partner now knew how I was taking his bid, and our auction proceded > > > accordingly. Neither of us knew how illegal our actions were (I won't > say > > > unethical, since we didn't know any better). > > > > > > > And they never checked his hand afterwards ? Which should > > have revealed that his intention was different from your > > explanation ? Then you were lucky ! And unethical. > > Unethical? I had followed dWs practice perfectly. I chose a meaning for > the call about which I was uncertain, exactly as you have been telling > people to do. If you think what I did then was unethical, why are you still > advising people to do it? You're right though. If done by someone who > knows better it is indeed unethical, and it's certainly illegal regardless > of intent. Since even you appear to think this, and since we had followed > dWs perfectly, perhaps it's time for you to reevaluate dWs? > > Incidentally, you didn't ask what partner's intent was. He had hoped I > would take the bid as artificial, which I did. No looking at hands would > have shown anything, since I had actually explained his intention. However, > I had not explained our agreement. We looked through the book we were > learning the system from after the event, and found out we were both wrong, > and that in the system we were playing the bid should have been natural. > So, he misbid, I misexplained, and he used the UI from my misexplanation. > Not one of our proudest moments. > I am quite certain you did not do it on purpose, and I had put my "unethical" only in if-mode. > What I should have done was to keep my mouth shut, and if asked about > partner's call said "no agreement". What partner should have done was to > bid as though I responded to his call *with the natural meaning*, since the > knowledge that I was taking his call as artificial was UI. But we were > novices at the time, and neither of us knew that. > > Hirsch Well, "no agreement" was wrong, was it ? You had some agreement, in fact that it was natural. You both forgot and so this is a part of MI, and some UI. But we are not talking of UI issues here, we are talking about doubt. When your partner makes a call that he intends as artificial, the TD will (sometimes) rule it corresponds to the agreement, so if you don't tell your opponents the same thing, that is MI. If you tell them it is natural, it is MI. If you tell them you believe it is natural, that is also MI. If you tell them you don't know, it is MI. If you tell them you don't have an agreement, it is MI. I prefer to tell them the first. At least if I have guessed correctly, and he did intend it as natural, then I have not given MI in cases 1 and 2, and I still have given MI in 3 and 4. And 1 is better than 2 (for me) because I don't show the doubt to opponents. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 09:44:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:44:50 +1100 (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 JAA09312 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:44:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-70-125.s125.tnt11.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.70.125]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA12446 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:51:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003201bf353a$d72ba400$7d46accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <38393FAE.B83E8B6B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:42:20 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 8:05 AM Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation > third reply. > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > 3) They have an agreement, but the agreement is ambiguous. > > >> > > How can that be ? > > > > > > > Partner opens a multi-2D. Please describe his hand. > > > > The agreement can be fully explained. I thought you were > talking about something completely different. An agreement > cannot be ambiguous, can it? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > Herman, All agreements, ambiguous or not, must be fully explained. An ambiguous agreement merely does not define the type of hand the bidder is holding very well. If the multi, which can show several different hand types doesn't strike you as ambiguous, substitute an undisciplined bidding style, where the bids don't show as much about the hand as a disciplined style. The undisciplined style is more ambiguous, in that is does not define the hands as well, but is nonetheless legal. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 10:12:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:12:26 +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 KAA09367 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:12:15 +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 SAA07690 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:12:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA11452 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:12:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:12:07 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911222312.SAA11452@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Q J 10 8 3 2 > K Q J 7 4 > A > 5 > A 9 K 7 6 5 4 > A 9 2 - > 10 7 4 9 8 6 5 2 > A Q 9 7 6 K J 4 > - > 10 8 6 5 3 > K Q J 3 > 10 8 3 2 (Bad idea to use tabs! Fixed.) > (hands turned to put declarer south) > contract, five hearts doubled > Lead : Ace of hearts, followed by the Ace of clubs and a > small heart. > East had thrown the five of diamonds on the heart (if you > can't follow suit, follow colour) and declarer probably did > not notice. > While East is thinking on the third trick, South claims, > saying, "I ruff three clubs". She honoustly admits having > forgotten the H9. It seems to be a flawed claim even without the admission. It might help to know what dummy played on the second trump; I'll assume low. Then this looks easy. Isn't a normal line win heart, ruff club, ruff spade, ruff club, ruff spade, ruff club, (D-A cashed on one of the trips to dummy), ruff spade (oops!)? Is there a normal line to give defenders more? I don't think it's normal to fail to unblock the diamonds nor to ruff a diamond high and then lead a low trump. The David's will disagree with this last and give the defense several club tricks, but I don't buy it. (I would give the defense several tricks if the 9 and 10 of hearts were interchanged.) What am I missing? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 19:38:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 19:38:47 +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 TAA10337 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 19:38:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.10]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA16668 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:38:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383956A1.48B5340C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:43:45 +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: 81C6 & 64C References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > "I saw it". "How to win friends and influence people" Part 1. > > Try to become a politician in your hometown, there you need that kind of > qualities. > Given the qualities of the front runner (or is he still ?) for Mayor of London, this is the gravest insult made in three years of blml. For those not following British politics (and why should you ?), Lord Archer, possible Conservative candidate for Mayor of London (a new post responsible for over 9 million people) has just been (allegedly) accused?/found guilty? of persuading a friend to lie in his favour during a court case 12 years ago. According to some (but presumably not all on this list), that is slightly more grave than committing the gross ethical misconduct of not admitting to your opponents that you are uncertain of the meaning of your partner's bid. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 23 20:03:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:03:49 +1100 (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 UAA10374 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:03:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:03:20 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA14036 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:59:45 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Improper information to partner???? Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:57:34 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: >If, by partnership agreement, the suit led by opener is always (except >trump, of course) placed at the left by dummy, is this improperly >conveying information to partner???? Nancy The Laws don't forbid it. You might think of it as a memory aid, but I think it's a bit far-fetched. In fact, the story goes that Terence Reese, whenever he played with someone he didn't trust (pretty often :-) ) he always put the lead suit down last, to the left, to force partner to make up a plan... Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 24 00:45:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 00:45:49 +1100 (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 AAA11337 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 00:45:41 +1100 (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 11qGG8-000HEf-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 13:45:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 03:03:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A claim References: <199911222312.SAA11452@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199911222312.SAA11452@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: Herman De Wael >> Q J 10 8 3 2 >> K Q J 7 4 >> A >> 5 >> A 9 K 7 6 5 4 >> A 9 2 - >> 10 7 4 9 8 6 5 2 >> A Q 9 7 6 K J 4 >> - >> 10 8 6 5 3 >> K Q J 3 >> 10 8 3 2 > >(Bad idea to use tabs! Fixed.) > >> (hands turned to put declarer south) >> contract, five hearts doubled >> Lead : Ace of hearts, followed by the Ace of clubs and a >> small heart. >> East had thrown the five of diamonds on the heart (if you >> can't follow suit, follow colour) and declarer probably did >> not notice. >> While East is thinking on the third trick, South claims, >> saying, "I ruff three clubs". She honoustly admits having >> forgotten the H9. > >It seems to be a flawed claim even without the admission. > >It might help to know what dummy played on the second trump; I'll >assume low. Then this looks easy. Isn't a normal line win heart, ruff >club, ruff spade, ruff club, ruff spade, ruff club, (D-A cashed on one >of the trips to dummy), ruff spade (oops!)? Is there a normal line to >give defenders more? I don't think it's normal to fail to unblock the >diamonds nor to ruff a diamond high and then lead a low trump. The >David's will disagree with this last and give the defense several club >tricks, but I don't buy it. (I would give the defense several tricks >if the 9 and 10 of hearts were interchanged.) > >What am I missing? Since you ascribe some strange line not covered by the statement to the "Davids" at least you could take the trouble to explain why we are ruling against the Laws of Bridge. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 24 02:15:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 02:15:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11654 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 02:14:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from p62s10a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.170.99] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11qHeE-00055f-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 07:14:26 -0800 Message-ID: <002d01bf35c5$428f9a00$63aa93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:08:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 21 November 1999 21:50 Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin >>The proof required is "evidence to the contrary". > > I find this a very strange sentence. Proof is not required, as can >clearly be seen from the Law you have quoted. "Evidence to the >contrary" is, but that is not proof. The term "Compelling Evidence" >[CE] was coined by someone to have a term for the level of evidence >required - but it is nowhere near proof. > +=+ The Director is empowered to judge what evidence convinces him. He is required to do it. The laws do not set out to give chapter and verse in exercise of Director's discretion; the laws intend that the Director shall act upon his opinion in judgemental matters. The current trend in World Bridge Federation thinking is to arm the Director and encourage Directors to form their opinion, in consultation with others, and to rule accordingly. What the authors of this philosophy recognize is that in a game that is largely about judgement the application of its rules is also necessarily based upon judgement. We seek ever improving judgement not absence of judgement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 24 03:50:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 03:50:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f112.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.112]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA11891 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 03:50:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 8911 invoked by uid 0); 23 Nov 1999 16:49:52 -0000 Message-ID: <19991123164952.8910.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:49:51 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 16:49:51 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Michael Farebrother wrote: >>>From: Ed Reppert >> >>>Okay. But you still haven't answered my question - what constitutes >>>proof? >> >>In this case, the footnote to L75D2 gives the answer to that: >> >> the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather >> than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. >> >>The proof required is "evidence to the contrary". > > I find this a very strange sentence. Proof is not required, as can >clearly be seen from the Law you have quoted. "Evidence to the contrary" >is, but that is not proof. The term "Compelling Evidence" [CE] was coined >by >someone to have a term for the level of evidence >required - but it is nowhere near proof. > {Pedant mode on} calum[4]mdf: oed proof [large snippage of etymology, variant forms] 1 a That which makes good or proves a statement; *evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something*. to make proof; to have weight as evidence (obs.). (my emphasis) [rest of definition (about 15 terminal screens worth) snipped] So: U.S. Criminal trial: proof (from prosecution side, at least) == "beyond a reasonable doubt". U.S. Civil trial: proof == "preponderance of the evidence". (sorry, can't cite references for these, except CNN - mdf). MI or MBid: proof (from offending side) == "evidence to the contrary". Proof is required; it's just that a very low boundary has been (appropriately, IMO) set for "evidence sufficient" for that proof. Michael (who finds having instant access to the complete online OED very interesting at times). ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 24 04:46:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 04:46:13 +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 EAA12097 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 04:46:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-97.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.97]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA22323 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 12:45:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002301bf35da$e97a1ce0$6184d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 12:48:09 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since we have elected to discuss the standards of proof, I think it is important that we recognise that the burder of proof is shifted in the MI case. It is more similar to the Napoleonic Code concept of guilty unless proven innocent, than to the U.S. system of justice that prevails in federal and all state courts save Louisiana's where an alleged offender has the legal presumption of innocence. We seem to be saying in the MI case there is damage, the alleged OS may have caused it, we shall penalise unless he can convince us he did nothing wrong. That is very different from what most of us accustomed to justice systems modeled on English common law customarily expect, and may render many of our comparisons invalid. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Appeals case, Nov. ACBL Bulletin >>From: David Stevenson > >>Michael Farebrother wrote: >>>>From: Ed Reppert >>> >>>>Okay. But you still haven't answered my question - what constitutes >>>>proof? >>> >>>In this case, the footnote to L75D2 gives the answer to that: >>> >>> the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather >>> than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. >>> >>>The proof required is "evidence to the contrary". >> >> I find this a very strange sentence. Proof is not required, as can >>clearly be seen from the Law you have quoted. "Evidence to the contrary" >>is, but that is not proof. The term "Compelling Evidence" [CE] was coined >>by >>someone to have a term for the level of evidence >>required - but it is nowhere near proof. >> >{Pedant mode on} >calum[4]mdf: oed proof > >[large snippage of etymology, variant forms] > 1 a That which makes good or proves a statement; *evidence >sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the >certainty of something*. to make proof; to have weight as evidence (obs.). > >(my emphasis) > >[rest of definition (about 15 terminal screens worth) snipped] > >So: > >U.S. Criminal trial: proof (from prosecution side, at least) == > "beyond a reasonable doubt". >U.S. Civil trial: proof == "preponderance of the evidence". >(sorry, can't cite references for these, except CNN - mdf). >MI or MBid: proof (from offending side) == "evidence to > the contrary". > >Proof is required; it's just that a very low boundary has been >(appropriately, IMO) set for "evidence sufficient" for that proof. > >Michael (who finds having instant access to the complete online OED >very interesting at times). > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 24 07:02:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 07:02:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA12361 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 07:02:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-144.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.144]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA13404; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:01:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <008801bf2b97$7ec72660$90b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:58:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 10:25 AM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >"Kooijman, A." wrote: >> >> > "I saw it". "How to win friends and influence people" Part 1. >> >> Try to become a politician in your hometown, there you need that kind of >> qualities. >> > >Given the qualities of the front runner (or is he still ?) >for Mayor of London, this is the gravest insult made in >three years of blml. This proofs my statement, but if you want me to apologize I do ton >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 24 07:24:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 07:24:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA12472 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 07:24:32 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id c.0.d76d3e83 (4563); Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:22:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.d76d3e83.256c5187@aol.com> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:22:31 EST Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 11/23/99 3:05:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > >> > "I saw it". "How to win friends and influence people" Part 1. > >> > >> Try to become a politician in your hometown, there you need that kind of > >> qualities. > >> > > > >Given the qualities of the front runner (or is he still ?) > >for Mayor of London, this is the gravest insult made in > >three years of blml. > > This proofs my statement, but if you want me to apologize I do > > ton > > > >-- > >Herman DE WAEL > >Antwerpen Belgium > >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > Kind of interesting to find a Belgian and a Hollander resorting to an example from England. Sure you guys couldn't find someone closer to your own homes to make your point? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 24 19:29:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 19:29:34 +1100 (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 TAA14815 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 19:29:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.115] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11qXnd-000N4F-00; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 08:29:13 +0000 Message-ID: <005601bf3655$f5048f20$735208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , , Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 08:25:29 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl ; hermandw@village.uunet.be ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 23 November 1999 21:01 Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >In a message dated 11/23/99 3:05:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, >t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > >> >> > "I saw it". "How to win friends and influence people" Part 1. >> >> >> >> Try to become a politician in your hometown, there you need that kind of >> >> qualities. >> >> >> > >> >Given the qualities of the front runner (or is he still ?) >> >for Mayor of London, this is the gravest insult made in >> >three years of blml. >> >> This proofs my statement, but if you want me to apologize I do >> >> ton >> >> >> >-- >> >Herman DE WAEL >> >Antwerpen Belgium >> >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html >> > >> > > >Kind of interesting to find a Belgian and a Hollander resorting to an example >from England. Sure you guys couldn't find someone closer to your own homes >to make your point? > +=+ As a mere Englander I am confused. Lord Archer has admitted that he asked a friend to lie for him. It was apparently the 'friend' who drew the attention of the media to the fact. It is in dispute whether the lie had any part in the court case in which Archer was awarded damages [£500,000 ?] for a libel in a newspaper, which had alleged an involvement with a prostitute; Archer's friends say the lie was to shield his family from information that he was dining with a lady friend. Archer is no longer a candidate for Mayor; his membership of the Conservative Party is under scrutiny and word has it that he may go before he is pushed. In the meantime there are a number of Londoners (which I am not), possibly the majority, who would contest the term 'front runner' - for many Londoners this would be Ken Livingstone (who is competing for the Labour candidacy against the bitter opposition of the Labour Prime Minister who wants a more conformist Labour politician) and for others it would be the eventual Labour Party candidate, whoever. For some reason the big issue seems to be privatisation in part of the London tube (metro) network, a Labour plan. The job I do when not interfering in bridge matters requires an even handed approach to all political parties; the antics in the lead-in to the election by Londoners of a Mayor for the city, with political clout rather than the ceremonial role of British Mayors hitherto, are giving me no cause for enthusiasm, or leanings, whatsoever - and the political initiative is one the Prime Minister may now rue. So perhaps the subject is, after all, something to do with Laws 81C6 and 64C? - also, a Londoner may wish to correct some inaccuracy in my distant view of the shenanigans. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 24 21:59:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:59:26 +1100 (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 VAA15142 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:59:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-138.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.138]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15328 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:59:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383A54A1.3D88D31@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:47:29 +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: A claim References: <199911222312.SAA11452@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > Q J 10 8 3 2 > > K Q J 7 4 > > A > > 5 > > A 9 K 7 6 5 4 > > A 9 2 - > > 10 7 4 9 8 6 5 2 > > A Q 9 7 6 K J 4 > > - > > 10 8 6 5 3 > > K Q J 3 > > 10 8 3 2 > > (Bad idea to use tabs! Fixed.) > > > (hands turned to put declarer south) > > contract, five hearts doubled > > Lead : Ace of hearts, followed by the Ace of clubs and a > > small heart. > > East had thrown the five of diamonds on the heart (if you > > can't follow suit, follow colour) and declarer probably did > > not notice. > > While East is thinking on the third trick, South claims, > > saying, "I ruff three clubs". She honoustly admits having > > forgotten the H9. > > It seems to be a flawed claim even without the admission. > > It might help to know what dummy played on the second trump; Sorry, the King. > I'll > assume low. Then this looks easy. Isn't a normal line win heart, ruff > club, ruff spade, ruff club, ruff spade, ruff club, (D-A cashed on one > of the trips to dummy), ruff spade (oops!)? Is there a normal line to > give defenders more? I don't think it's normal to fail to unblock the > diamonds nor to ruff a diamond high and then lead a low trump. The > David's will disagree with this last and give the defense several club > tricks, but I don't buy it. (I would give the defense several tricks > if the 9 and 10 of hearts were interchanged.) > > What am I missing? The King. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 24 23:04:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 23:04:21 +1100 (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 XAA15389 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 23:04:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA10380; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 13:03:57 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JIPT6C5N0C00A1SI@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 13:03:30 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 13:03:30 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 13:03:27 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: 81C6 & 64C To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A8@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 > >> > > > > > >Given the qualities of the front runner (or is he still ?) > > >for Mayor of London, this is the gravest insult made in > > >three years of blml. > > > > This proofs my statement, but if you want me to apologize I do > > > > ton > > Kind of interesting to find a Belgian and a Hollander > resorting to an example > from England. Sure you guys couldn't find someone closer to > your own homes > to make your point? > > Kojak We might find one in Belgium but not in Holland. ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 24 23:36:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 23:36:08 +1100 (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 XAA15498 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 23:36:00 +1100 (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 MAA29843 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:35:50 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA02964 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:35:50 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:35:49 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 MAA12748 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:35:48 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA09896 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:35:48 GMT Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:35:48 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199911241235.MAA09896@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > Q J 10 8 3 2 > > > K Q J 7 4 > > > A > > > 5 > > > A 9 K 7 6 5 4 > > > A 9 2 - > > > 10 7 4 9 8 6 5 2 > > > A Q 9 7 6 K J 4 > > > - > > > 10 8 6 5 3 > > > K Q J 3 > > > 10 8 3 2 > > > > (Bad idea to use tabs! Fixed.) > > > > > (hands turned to put declarer south) > > > contract, five hearts doubled > > > Lead : Ace of hearts, followed by the Ace of clubs and a > > > small heart. > > > East had thrown the five of diamonds on the heart (if you > > > can't follow suit, follow colour) and declarer probably did > > > not notice. > > > While East is thinking on the third trick, South claims, > > > saying, "I ruff three clubs". She honoustly admits having > > > forgotten the H9. > > It might help to know what dummy played on the second trump; > Sorry, the King. In which case a normal line (from trick one) is HA, CA, H2:K, DA, Sx:ruffed, Cx:ruffed, Sx:ruffed, Cx:ruffed, Sx:ruffed (East: D), HK, DQ:ruffed by East, oops! The position is now something like his: DQ, H9 already played. East's third card depends solely on what he threw at trick three (perhaps it was important after all!). Q J K - - - K (7) [9] - - 9 (8) Q 9 - - - [Q] J 10 It is probably not normal for North to lead high spades to ruff, so we assume that North still has a spade stop. Can it be right for North not to overruff? Given South has lost track of the hand. Even if North overruffs and plays a spade, what does South discard? Obviously South has a complete count of East/West hands an knows that West has only clubs and hence all the remaining clubs. But will a careless South always get this right -- probably, DJ is good and C10 (probably) isn't. [ Can you make a claim that you will not be pseudo-squeezed. Getting a pseudo-squeeze position wrong is irrational, but players do it all the time. ] I rule that the defence make three tricks, declarer makes SJ or DJ at trick twelve from the position above. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 00:06:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 00:06:38 +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 AAA15568 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 00:06:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-240.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.240]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA09063 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:06:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383BCE04.595BF701@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:37:40 +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: 81C6 & 64C References: <0.d76d3e83.256c5187@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > Kind of interesting to find a Belgian and a Hollander resorting to an example > from England. Sure you guys couldn't find someone closer to your own homes > to make your point? > > Kojak Not yesterday, we couldn't. But rest assured, there is a lot of dirty politics in Belgium as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 01:41:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 01:41:00 +1100 (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 BAA15831 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 01:40:51 +1100 (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 11qdb7-000OmN-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:40:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:15:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: <005601bf3655$f5048f20$735208c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <005601bf3655$f5048f20$735208c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott writes snip > So perhaps the subject is, after all, something > to do with Laws 81C6 and 64C? - also, a Londoner > may wish to correct some inaccuracy in my distant > view of the shenanigans. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ some of the radio shows are polling heavy phone-ins saying "Archer, a 'crook', just what the Capital needs!" Mostly the whole thing is a great yawn, with a certain degree of amusement at the posturing of both major parties. cheers john But back to 81C6 & 64C ... I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust to). Now according to the perceived wisdom I became aware of an infraction and 81C6 applies, yet I was not called in. By analogy with the 64C problem are you suggesting I should go back and adjust anyway? My view is, and remains, No. The players have perceived that the hand in either case has been played according to the Laws of Bridge. Even though I am aware, in either case (64C or UI) why should I interfere? In neither case have I been asked to make a ruling. In cricket an umpire may well believe that a batsman is out. He does not give the batsman out unless the player asks for a ruling "Howzat?". Again why should the umpire interfere? This may well be covered by the laws of cricket but the situation is similar. I have a deep unease here. Bridge is decided by what happens at the table, not by external and uncontrollable co-incidence. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 03:39:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 03:39:19 +1100 (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 DAA16320 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 03:39:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-113.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.113]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA11153 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:38:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001a01bf369a$bb72f540$7184d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:41:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (MADDOG)>In cricket an umpire may well believe that a batsman is out. He does not >give the batsman out unless the player asks for a ruling "Howzat?". >Again why should the umpire interfere? This may well be covered by the >laws of cricket but the situation is similar. This sounds rather similar to an appeal play in baseball. The umpire must not let on that the runner failed to touch a base, or left a base before a fly ball was caught unless and until the opposing team appeals by holding the ball and touching the base. But that is spelled out in the laws of the game. In bridge, what is spelled out is that the directors duties include that he "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner". Should a director be derelict in his duty under the laws then? Or should we modify the wording to make clear that the director is NOT required to rectify all such errors unless called upon? I don't feel very comfortable about the director taking the law in his own hands by looking away when the laws do not appear to give him that option. -- Craig To complete the Clinton parallel, perhaps the would-be mayor's wife could seek a seat in Parliament? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 06:49:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 06:49:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16894 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 06:49:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp233-146.worldonline.nl [195.241.233.146]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA28300; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 20:48:48 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006d01bf36b5$13c63300$4dedf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 20:49:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst: >In article <005601bf3655$f5048f20$735208c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott > writes > >snip > > >But back to 81C6 & 64C ... > >I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. > >However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have >adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would >be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust >to). > >Now according to the perceived wisdom I became aware of an infraction >and 81C6 applies, yet I was not called in. By analogy with the 64C >problem are you suggesting I should go back and adjust anyway? > >My view is, and remains, No. The players have perceived that the hand >in either case has been played according to the Laws of Bridge. Even >though I am aware, in either case (64C or UI) why should I interfere? In >neither case have I been asked to make a ruling. > >In cricket an umpire may well believe that a batsman is out. He does not >give the batsman out unless the player asks for a ruling "Howzat?". >Again why should the umpire interfere? This may well be covered by the >laws of cricket but the situation is similar. > >I have a deep unease here. Bridge is decided by what happens at the >table, not by external and uncontrollable co-incidence. > Dear John, I share much of your uneasiness, but are you serious in calling being called to the table by the players themselves "an uncontrollable co-incidence" ? I gave an example in another thread where I was standing in for a dummy that had temporarily left his table. If you were to call that an u.c. I would agree, but surely, being called by the players who are executing or undergoing the presumed infraction isn't a co-incidence, is it ? Jac (Jac Fuchs) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 08:49:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:49:58 +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 IAA17137 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:49:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from p3es07a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.87.63] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11qkI5-0008M2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:49:29 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:50:54 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf36c5$fb5e9440$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Jac Fuchs To: BLML Cc: John Probst Date: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 8:04 PM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >John Probst: > > >>In article <005601bf3655$f5048f20$735208c3@swhki5i6>, Grattan Endicott >> writes >> >>snip > > >> >> >>But back to 81C6 & 64C ... >> >>I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >>hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >>of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. >> >>However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have >>adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would >>be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust >>to). Certainly you should go back ( you really should not have left). Law16A2 tells us that "The Director shall require the auction and play to continue,_*standing ready to assign an adjusted score if =he= considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage*_" (emphasis mine) >> >>Now according to the perceived wisdom I became aware of an infraction >>and 81C6 applies, yet I was not called in. By analogy with the 64C >>problem are you suggesting I should go back and adjust anyway? This is one we are instructed to deal with there and then. I have always thought that L81C6 meant, if you know about it, deal with it. Now I am not so sure. The correction period ends (say) 30mins after the posting of the final result. The FLB does not say when the CP starts. Logic tells me that it starts when the final score is posted. The FLB does not really make it clear what I should do if I accidentally see a revoke on board 2, unless it says that I should correct it _within the correction period_. If it meant, any time from when I saw it as long as I did it before the end of the correction period, it would have said so. But No, it says *do it within the correction period.* L81C6 can only be interpreted in one of two ways.1) the TD has a duty to rectify _within the correction period_, all errors or infractions of which he has become aware during the auction/play/ correction period. or 2) the TD has a duty to rectify within the correction period, all errors or infractions of which he becomes aware within the correction period. I favour 2), but certainly 1) would help those who do not wish to interfere at a table to which they have not been called. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 09:06:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:06:37 +1100 (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 JAA17197 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:06:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ma249690 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:05:54 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-221-7.tmns.net.au ([139.134.221.7]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Hot-MailRouter V2.6c 9/8106); 25 Nov 1999 08:05:54 Message-ID: <011401bf3767$3542e980$66dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:04:19 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 John Probst wrote: >some of the radio shows are polling heavy phone-ins saying "Archer, a >'crook', just what the Capital needs!" Transport him to Australia. We can have another referendum, worded differently, and then appoint him as our first President. :) >But back to 81C6 & 64C ... > >I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. > >However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have >adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would >be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust >to). > >Now according to the perceived wisdom I became aware of an infraction >and 81C6 applies, yet I was not called in. By analogy with the 64C >problem are you suggesting I should go back and adjust anyway? L16A2 states: "The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of Law has resulted in damage." This seems to confirm L81C6, that the Director adjusts whether the players request it or not. Of course *standing ready* is impractical because most TDs know that Director Calls tend to occur simultaneously so that the TD can rarely *stand ready*. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 10:39:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:39:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17423 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:39:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-213-118.s626.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.213.118] helo=hdavis) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 11qlzc-0000Ak-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 18:38:33 -0500 Message-ID: <00f901bf36d4$b8c2bd00$76d53ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <011401bf3767$3542e980$66dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 18:36:20 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 12:04 PM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C > > L16A2 states: > "The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, > standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers > that an infraction of Law has resulted in damage." > > This seems to confirm L81C6, that the Director adjusts whether > the players request it or not. Of course *standing ready* is > impractical because most TDs know that Director Calls tend > to occur simultaneously so that the TD can rarely *stand ready*. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > True, but it looks much nicer in the Law book than "...and shall run frantically back to the table to assign an adjusted score..." ;) Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 11:55:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 11:55:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17612 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 11:55:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from p66s10a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.106.103] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11qVuj-0005Ul-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 06:28:26 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 00:56:51 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf36df$f5ab14a0$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: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 10:24 PM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >John Probst wrote: >>some of the radio shows are polling heavy phone-ins saying "Archer, a >>'crook', just what the Capital needs!" > >Transport him to Australia. We can have another referendum, worded >differently, and then appoint him as our first President. :) I understand that the gentleman's brother plays bridge in the county of Devon. > >>But back to 81C6 & 64C ... >> >>I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >>hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >>of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. >> >>However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have >>adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would >>be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust >>to). >> >>Now according to the perceived wisdom I became aware of an infraction >>and 81C6 applies, yet I was not called in. By analogy with the 64C >>problem are you suggesting I should go back and adjust anyway? > > >L16A2 states: >"The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, >standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers >that an infraction of Law has resulted in damage." > >This seems to confirm L81C6, that the Director adjusts whether >the players request it or not. Of course *standing ready* is >impractical because most TDs know that Director Calls tend >to occur simultaneously so that the TD can rarely *stand ready*. I think this is an euphomism for "being at the ready". When I worked, I was very often on "stand by". This did not mean that I had to be at my place of employment, but ready to get there quickly when necessary. The reason we do not get called back is either that the NOs were not damaged, or, and this should be stopped, because either the NOs decided that "he had his bid", or worse, the offender convinces the NOs that he would always make that bid. Players are not expected to know about LAs. I think that if the TD is going to leave the table, he should give very explicit instructions that he is to be called back if the NOs do not get a good board. Early in a pairs event especially, or in Swiss, or teams, some players will not know whether they have been damaged. There is no score for them to compare their result with, and many have no idea of what the par contract should be. The TD must protect these players. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 12:36:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 12:36:33 +1100 (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 MAA17708 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 12:36:21 +1100 (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 11qnpR-0001WV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 01:36:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 01:28:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C References: <01bf36c5$fb5e9440$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf36c5$fb5e9440$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >>John Probst: >>>But back to 81C6 & 64C ... >>> >>>I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >>>hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >>>of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. >>> >>>However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have >>>adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would >>>be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust >>>to). >Certainly you should go back ( you really should not have left). Law16A2 >tells >us that "The Director shall require the auction and play to >continue,_*standing >ready to assign an adjusted score if =he= considers that an infraction of >law has > resulted in damage*_" (emphasis mine) "you should not have left" is not an interpretation followed anywhere, and is really both impractical and cumbersome. We teach our TDs to leave the table after explaining in what situations they should be recalled: in some situations a TD may require to be recalled at the end of the hand whatever happens. "standing ready" is a term generally understood to mean that a person is "ready, willing and able" but not that he is necessarily standing next to the table concerned. >>>Now according to the perceived wisdom I became aware of an infraction >>>and 81C6 applies, yet I was not called in. By analogy with the 64C >>>problem are you suggesting I should go back and adjust anyway? >This is one we are instructed to deal with there and then. I have always >thought >that L81C6 meant, if you know about it, deal with it. Now I am not so sure. >The correction period ends (say) 30mins after the posting of the final >result. >The FLB does not say when the CP starts. Logic tells me that it starts when >the >final score is posted. Surely not! If someone comes up to you during the first round of play and says that a board is fouled, I think you would feel you could deal with it, no? There is no doubt that the Correction Period for a session starts no later than the start of the session: anything else is just not practical. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 25 13:15:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:15:56 +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 NAA17793 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:15:49 +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 11qoRe-0009xD-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:15:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 01:50:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Australia MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G'day! I shall be in Australia for most of January and February. I am directing at the Summer Festival in Canberra from 12th to 21st January, and directing at the Gold Coast Congress near Brisbane from 19th to 26th February. I shall be in Sydney from the 24th to 30th January, and I have no idea where for the first two and a half weeks of February! I should very much like to meet members of BLML who live in Australia - or anyone who is attending these events. I am also looking for something to do in the first half of February. No doubt I can just act as a tourist, but if there were an offer of directing another bridge event in Australia or New Zealand in that time I should appreciate it. Other offers would be appreciated as well - apart from Bridge my main interest is trains [and cats, of course, but I hardly want to see a lot of Australian cats!]. If you have any suggestions or offers please email 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 Nov 25 13:49:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:49:32 +1100 (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 NAA17848 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:49:20 +1100 (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 11qoy4-000CZW-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:49:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:31:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: <006d01bf36b5$13c63300$4dedf1c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <006d01bf36b5$13c63300$4dedf1c3@default>, Jac Fuchs writes snip >>I have a deep unease here. Bridge is decided by what happens at the >>table, not by external and uncontrollable co-incidence. >> >Dear John, > >I share much of your uneasiness, but are you serious in calling being called >to the table by the players themselves "an uncontrollable co-incidence" ? Nope, >I gave an example in another thread where I was standing in for a dummy that >had temporarily left his table. If you were to call that an u.c. I would >agree, but surely, being called by the players who are executing or >undergoing the presumed infraction isn't a co-incidence, is it ? the coincidence applies to seeing a revoke. It doesn't apply to not being called back. Sorry I wasn't my usual crystal clear self ;-} sorry for the confusion 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 13:49:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:49:34 +1100 (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 NAA17849 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:49:21 +1100 (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 11qoy5-0006CK-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:49:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:45:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Anne Jones wrote: >>>John Probst: > >>>>But back to 81C6 & 64C ... >>>> snip >>The correction period ends (say) 30mins after the posting of the final >>result. >>The FLB does not say when the CP starts. Logic tells me that it starts when >>the >>final score is posted. > > Surely not! If someone comes up to you during the first round of play >and says that a board is fouled, I think you would feel you could deal >with it, no? > > There is no doubt that the Correction Period for a session starts no >later than the start of the session: anything else is just not >practical. > I have always felt that the TD's duties are two separate jobs: 1) The smooth running of the event in terms of moves on time, no movement glitches, timely scoring etc. These are nothing to do with bridge, just organisation Law 82A 2) As a referee. 81C6 and 82A makes it clear that I should fix type 1) problems immediately. It also makes it clear that I should fix anything brought to my attention during the correction period, which I have always understood to be from the time the last round finishes (or the results being posted). This caters for revokes discovered from hand records, and misboards etc. It is not clear to me that 81C6 applies to the 64C problem, or the UI and not being called back. 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 13:49:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:49:34 +1100 (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 NAA17850 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:49:22 +1100 (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 11qoy4-000CZV-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:49:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:38:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: <01bf36c5$fb5e9440$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf36c5$fb5e9440$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >>> >>> >>>But back to 81C6 & 64C ... >>> >>>I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >>>hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >>>of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. >>> >>>However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have >>>adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would >>>be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust >>>to). but in this case I had formed an opinion. Supposing I had not formed an opinion and the players told me they were content? Again we are back into the co-incidence that I happened to have studied the hand records. To be clear though, I have not been asked to make a ruling - so should I? > >Certainly you should go back ( you really should not have left). Law16A2 >tells >us that "The Director shall require the auction and play to >continue,_*standing >ready to assign an adjusted score if =he= considers that an infraction of >law has > resulted in damage*_" (emphasis mine) Perhaps the players have felt that there was no infraction of Law. - otherwise they'd have asked for the ruling. Should I second guess them? Sometimes I'll ask at the end of the hand "Everything ok?" and they say "yes" when, for example I haven't studied the hand. Do I now go off and check the hand and adjust? snip >L81C6 can only be interpreted in one of two ways.1) the TD has a duty to >rectify >_within the correction period_, all errors or infractions of which he has >become >aware during the auction/play/ correction period. or 2) the TD has a duty to >rectify within the correction period, all errors or infractions of which he >becomes >aware within the correction period. >I favour 2), but certainly 1) would help those who do not wish to interfere >at a table >to which they have not been called. >Anne Interesting idea. I like it. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 14:28:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA17945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 14:28:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe53.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA17940 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 14:28:10 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 49171 invoked by uid 65534); 25 Nov 1999 03:27:27 -0000 Message-ID: <19991125032727.49170.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.164.93] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01bf36df$f5ab14a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:27:19 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 6:56 PM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C -s- > Players are not expected to know about LAs. > Anne I would like to know why. I can think of no occurrence so frequent where a player is likely to be put in a position of negatively impacting his score than having UI available. The law requires that players with UI must distinguish LAs in selecting their future actions. Since players are not expected to understand LAs could it be that it is desired for players to infract the restrictions of L16? No. I say that it ought be expected that every player of experience or who routinely scores high in his section should understand the LA. And newer players be introduced gently to the matter that when they are ready they might grasp it. It is by this education that this competitive past time will be enjoyed by ladies and gentlemen. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 21:53:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 21:53:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA18731 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 21:53:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from pf8s08a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.88.249] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11qwVt-0003Cr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:52:33 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Australia Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:59:50 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf372b$d0119d80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, November 25, 1999 2:36 AM Subject: Australia > > > G'day! > > I shall be in Australia for most of January and February. I am >directing at the Summer Festival in Canberra from 12th to 21st January, >and directing at the Gold Coast Congress near Brisbane from 19th to 26th >February. I shall be in Sydney from the 24th to 30th January, and I >have no idea where for the first two and a half weeks of February! > > I should very much like to meet members of BLML who live in Australia >- or anyone who is attending these events. > > I am also looking for something to do in the first half of February. >No doubt I can just act as a tourist, but if there were an offer of >directing another bridge event in Australia or New Zealand in that time >I should appreciate it. Other offers would be appreciated as well - >apart from Bridge my main interest is trains [and cats, of course, but I >hardly want to see a lot of Australian cats!]. > > If you have any suggestions or offers please email me. Please someone, find a job for David during early February. He is just not cut out for backpacking :-) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 21:53:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 21:53:20 +1100 (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 VAA18732 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 21:53:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from pf8s08a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.88.249] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11qwVr-0003Cr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:52:32 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:30:11 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3727$abbff700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, November 25, 1999 1:56 AM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >Anne Jones wrote: >>>John Probst: > >>>>But back to 81C6 & 64C ... >>>> >>>>I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >>>>hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >>>>of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. >>>> >>>>However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have >>>>adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would >>>>be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust >>>>to). > >>Certainly you should go back ( you really should not have left). Law16A2 >>tells >>us that "The Director shall require the auction and play to >>continue,_*standing >>ready to assign an adjusted score if =he= considers that an infraction of >>law has >> resulted in damage*_" (emphasis mine) > > "you should not have left" is not an interpretation followed anywhere, >and is really both impractical and cumbersome. We teach our TDs to >leave the table after explaining in what situations they should be >recalled: in some situations a TD may require to be recalled at the end >of the hand whatever happens. "standing ready" is a term generally >understood to mean that a person is "ready, willing and able" but not >that he is necessarily standing next to the table concerned. Yes. I realise this. I would not repeat myself, but you have evidently missed my point. If a player calls a TD and says "I believe my opp may have made a bid which is based on UI, or however else he phrases it, the TD has a duty to deal with it. Yes I think he must adjust if after due consideration he considers that the allegation was correct. No he must not rely on the players concept of LA. The TD must make a judgement as to whether damage has occurred as consequence of UI. The law says so. > >>The FLB does not say when the CP starts. Logic tells me that it starts when >>the >>final score is posted. > > Surely not! If someone comes up to you during the first round of play >and says that a board is fouled, I think you would feel you could deal >with it, no? That is not what I said, and it is not what I meant. Of course you should deal. > > There is no doubt that the Correction Period for a session starts no >later than the start of the session: anything else is just not >practical. I cannot agree with this. The correction period refereed to in L81C6 is that defined in L79. It talks of correcting errors in computing or tabulating the agreed upon score. I am convinced that the correction period is the period after all play ceases. There are few other references to the correction period. (Law 69B is the first mention of the concept of a correction period at all) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 21:53:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 21:53:20 +1100 (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 VAA18730 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 21:53:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from pf8s08a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.88.249] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11qwVq-0003Cr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:52:30 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:26:57 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3727$38365400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, November 25, 1999 3:07 AM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >In article <01bf36c5$fb5e9440$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones > writes >>>> >>>> >>>>But back to 81C6 & 64C ... >>>> >>>>I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >>>>hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >>>>of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. >>>> >>>>However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have >>>>adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would >>>>be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust >>>>to). > >but in this case I had formed an opinion. Supposing I had not formed an >opinion and the players told me they were content? Again we are back >into the co-incidence that I happened to have studied the hand records. >To be clear though, I have not been asked to make a ruling - so should >I? >Perhaps the players have felt that there was no infraction of Law. - >otherwise they'd have asked for the ruling. Should I second guess them? >Sometimes I'll ask at the end of the hand "Everything ok?" and they say >"yes" when, for example I haven't studied the hand. Do I now go off and >check the hand and adjust? Once the players have brought to your attention that there might have been an infraction, Yes I think you should look at the hand records and decide what you will do about it if a) there was _and_ b) the NOs were in _your_ opinion damaged as a consequence. That is exactly what L16 says. It does not say _if the NOs claim they were damaged as a consequence_. It is true that the TD is not expected to adjust for damage that has not been claimed, but in calling the TD to register the aleged infraction, the NOs have IMO asked for a judgement. This is as opposed to "reserving rights" when a side that considers itself competent to judge may decide not to call the TD. In my experience players do far better in calling the TD than not. I have lost count of the number of times a pair had said to me "he had his bid",when I, in consultation with others, had already decided that I would adjust and had returned to the table so to do. > >snip > >>L81C6 can only be interpreted in one of two ways.1) the TD has a duty to >>rectify >>_within the correction period_, all errors or infractions of which he has >>become >>aware during the auction/play/ correction period. or 2) the TD has a duty to >>rectify within the correction period, all errors or infractions of which he >>becomes >>aware within the correction period. >>I favour 2), but certainly 1) would help those who do not wish to interfere >>at a table >>to which they have not been called. >>Anne > >Interesting idea. I like it. cheers john I remember being taught by no other than Mike Swanson that to go to the bar before the end of the correction period was ill-advised for fear of hearing admissions of wrongdoing with which one would have to deal. (I also remember him teaching that it was flamboyant but not irrational to play 2 from AKQJ2 if you thought they were all good!) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 25 22:20:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 22:20:23 +1100 (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 WAA18863 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 22:20:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-119.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.119]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA05464 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 12:20:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383BE9D6.C79B274C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:36:22 +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: A claim References: <199911241235.MAA09896@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > It might help to know what dummy played on the second trump; > > > Sorry, the King. > > In which case a normal line (from trick one) is > HA, CA, H2:K, DA, Sx:ruffed, Cx:ruffed, Sx:ruffed, Cx:ruffed, > Sx:ruffed (East: D), HK, DQ:ruffed by East, oops! > exactly the analysis we made all together at the table (four players, one kibitzer and me - was quite amusing) > The position is now something like his: DQ, H9 already played. > East's third card depends solely on what he threw at trick three > (perhaps it was important after all!). > He did not throw anything, yet, but I don't think it is important. He started with just 3 clubs, so he has none left now. > Q J > K > - > - > - K (7) > [9] - > - 9 (8) > Q 9 - > - > - > [Q] J > 10 > > It is probably not normal for North to lead high spades > to ruff, so we assume that North still has a spade stop. > Indeed. but another example of how to play hands "normally" - some would disagree, perhaps. > Can it be right for North not to overruff? Given South > has lost track of the hand. > No it cannot. > Even if North overruffs and plays a spade, what does South > discard? Obviously South has a complete count of East/West > hands an knows that West has only clubs and hence all the > remaining clubs. But will a careless South always get this > right -- probably, DJ is good and C10 (probably) isn't. > South was only careless in not noticing the discard on the first trick, she is bound to get it right afterwards. > [ Can you make a claim that you will not be pseudo-squeezed. > Getting a pseudo-squeeze position wrong is irrational, but > players do it all the time. ] > In fact there is no pseudo-squeeze, just a trying to remember if East or West has the last club and diamond. But West has just ruffed the previous diamond, so East must have the last one. It is easy to count. > I rule that the defence make three tricks, declarer makes > SJ or DJ at trick twelve from the position above. > I ruled exactly the same. > Robin -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 26 02:26:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 02:26:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA19692 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 02:26:33 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id f.0.8c8ca02 (4396); Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:25:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.8c8ca02.256eaefa@aol.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:25:46 EST Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C To: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Does anyone else out there beside me think that the correction period starts when there is a need or occasion for correction AND ENDS ACCORDING TO LAW 79C? It says nothing about when period begins, but clearly states that "....the correction period EXPIRES 30 minutes after...." Had the Law intended that all corrections be done during a period of 30 minutes after play, it would have so stated. If you had a correction to make, an adjustment, a penalty to apply, a procedure to rectify, a score correction, an impossible score turned in, a fouled board brought to your attention, etc., would you wait until the end of play? Of course not! The intent of Law 79C reference the period of time, is to give finality to when certain actions can be taken, not to start and stop a period of time for them to be acomplished. Since certain violations of Law (i.e. failure to alert behind screens, misexplanation at one table in a team match, etc. Yea, even the misscoring of a match ala Geneva! ) sometimes cannot be even found out before play ends, this provision of Law (to extend the time --also please note the caveat in the footnote -- as needed depending on the nature of the contest) was put there to give a fair chance to straighten out those previously undiscovered problems. Go ahead, semanticists and BLs, tell me I'm wrong. Happy Thanksgiving. This is the day we give thanks for the great wonder of being able to live in America. Should we be wrong about how great that is why are so many wanting to come here from all over the world? So there, how's that for cheering for the home team? Happy days, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 26 02:37:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 02:37:19 +1100 (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 CAA19728 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 02:37:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from pc1s12a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.172.194] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11r0wp-00078M-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 07:36:39 -0800 Message-ID: <000301bf375a$b201a5e0$c2ac93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Australia Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:51:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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> If you have any suggestions or offers please email me. > >Please someone, find a job for David during early February. >He is just not cut out for backpacking :-) > +=+ Well, I don't think he should teach cricket. ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 26 02:37:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA19740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 02:37:20 +1100 (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 CAA19729 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 02:37:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from pc1s12a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.172.194] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11r0wq-00078M-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 07:36:40 -0800 Message-ID: <000401bf375a$b2a056e0$c2ac93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:58:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 >I remember being taught by no other than Mike Swanson that to go to the >bar before the end of the correction period was ill-advised for fear of >hearing admissions of wrongdoing with which one would have to deal. >(I also remember him teaching that it was flamboyant but not irrational >to play 2 from AKQJ2 if you thought they were all good!) +=+ In terms of psychiatry, and the dictionary, it is surely not irrational when all cards are equal to play any one of them. There is a view that as a judgemental bridge interpretation it is deemed 'irrational' to play the 2 and this seems to have considerable official backing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 26 04:16:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 04:16:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA20037 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 04:16:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-172.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.172]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA22748; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 18:15:19 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004e01bf2b9e$ff6501a0$e2b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:14:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Schoderb@aol.com To: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, November 25, 1999 5:11 PM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >Does anyone else out there beside me think that the correction period starts >when there is a need or occasion for correction AND ENDS ACCORDING TO LAW >79C? It says nothing about when period begins, but clearly states that >"....the correction period EXPIRES 30 minutes after...." Had the Law >intended that all corrections be done during a period of 30 minutes after >play, it would have so stated. If you had a correction to make, an >adjustment, a penalty to apply, a procedure to rectify, a score correction, >an impossible score turned in, a fouled board brought to your attention, >etc., would you wait until the end of play? Of course not! The intent of >Law 79C reference the period of time, is to give finality to when certain >actions can be taken, not to start and stop a period of time for them to be >acomplished. Since certain violations of Law (i.e. failure to alert behind >screens, misexplanation at one table in a team match, etc. Yea, even the >misscoring of a match ala Geneva! ) sometimes cannot be even found out before >play ends, this provision of Law (to extend the time --also please note the >caveat in the footnote -- as needed depending on the nature of the contest) >was put there to give a fair chance to straighten out those previously >undiscovered problems. Go ahead, semanticists and BLs, tell me I'm wrong. Do you think 'they' are seriously trying to make such a statement. Convincing us that a kibitzer telling us about a revoke during play is just told to shut up and a kibitzer telling this after play has finished will be heard? You are joking. And for 'them' I hope they are too. ton >Happy Thanksgiving. This is the day we give thanks for the great wonder of >being able to live in America. Should we be wrong about how great that is why >are so many wanting to come here from all over the world? So there, how's >that for cheering for the home team? > >Happy days, Kojak You chauvinist, we have a lot of immigrants also, and most of the time pray to become less popular. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 26 07:17:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA20539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 07:17:22 +1100 (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 HAA20534 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 07:17:15 +1100 (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 JAA16126 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:17:09 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991126091717.00964320@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:17:17 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Invisible misinformation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I suspect that I am just very dense ... or rather more so than usual, but I've managed to completely tangle my mental web about a hand from the club last night. (I also think this topic has been covered before here, but for the life of me I can't find it.) So here's what happened: W N E S p p 1n(12-14) x(penalties) p p p Before the opening lead, west quite properly informs NS that his pass was supposed to force a redouble (and hence be alertable.) This is quite an admirable and ethical admission since he has a 5422 nine count which was intending to sit the redouble. East quite readily agrees that west's explanation is correct. Anyhow, 1nx makes 2. There is a clear mistaken explanation (or what amounts to the same thing) owing to the failure to alert the pass. On the other hand, it could be argued that the damage is caused by a mistaken bid (the pass instead of xx). So do NS get and adjustment, or is it "rub of the green"? Just for amusement, here are the four hands. Suppose that NS do get an adjustment (in some hypothetical universe where the laws of bridge are different if you believe this to be clearly incorrect.) What's the adjusted score? K97 K9743 5 7432 AT653 842 J862 A5 A7 KJ62 T5 QJ96 QJ QT QT9843 AK8 Yes, east is a point light, and south's x a bit speculative. --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Nov 26 12:43:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:43:43 +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 MAA21211 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:43:35 +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 11rAPx-000D8b-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 01:43:22 +0000 Message-ID: <$pFfNsBSgYP4EwlM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 19:03:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C References: <01bf3727$abbff700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf3727$abbff700$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 >> There is no doubt that the Correction Period for a session starts no >>later than the start of the session: anything else is just not >>practical. >I cannot agree with this. The correction period refereed to in L81C6 is >that defined in L79. It talks of correcting errors in computing or >tabulating >the agreed upon score. So if an error in computing or tabulating the agreed upon score is found *before* the end of the session you could not legally deal with it? > I am convinced that the correction period is the >period after all play ceases. There are few other references to the >correction period. (Law 69B is the first mention of the concept of a >correction period at all) True: but there is no reference to the start of the period and it is ludicrous to have it starting any later than the start of the session. Why should such an arbitrary decision be made anyway? There is no need to worry about the start unless there is something you will not do before the start. What are you not prepared to do before the session ends? Correct a mis-score? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 26 14:30:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 14:30:04 +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 OAA21411 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 14:29:56 +1100 (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 11rC4w-000Kcr-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 03:29:47 +0000 Message-ID: <1SXsodBTyfP4EwXZ@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 03:20:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: <$pFfNsBSgYP4EwlM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <$pFfNsBSgYP4EwlM@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Anne Jones wrote: >>From: David Stevenson > >>> There is no doubt that the Correction Period for a session starts no >>>later than the start of the session: anything else is just not >>>practical. > Agreed. snip > > Why should such an arbitrary decision be made anyway? There is no >need to worry about the start unless there is something you will not do >before the start. What are you not prepared to do before the session >ends? Correct a mis-score? > 81C5 ... administer and interpret these Laws ... 81C6 ... rectify an error or irregularity ... by any manner 81C7 ... assess penalties ... Errors are clearly to do with the running of the tournament - like glitches in the movement, scoring errors, misduplication, mis-boarding etc so we are down to rectifying irregularities 12A says the TD *may* award an adjusted score, as does 12A3 (incorrect penalty). Clearly if one is called to the table one *should* and indeed *does* do this as appropriate. And indeed within the correction period if I am 'called' I must do it. I'm not convinced that I *have* to if I'm not called. There's no doubt I would if I saw people comparing scorecards in the toilets for example. Other parts of 81C tell me about assessing penalties (which would include restoring equity (64C)), 81C6 does not. I don't think this is anyways as clear as the Great and Good would have us believe. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 26 20:16:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 20:16:08 +1100 (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 UAA22493 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 20:15:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.113] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11rHTa-0006si-00; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:15:35 +0000 Message-ID: <000401bf37ee$c4194dc0$715108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:00:33 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 November 1999 03:48 Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >> Why should such an arbitrary decision be made anyway? There is no >>need to worry about the start unless there is something you will not do >>before the start. What are you not prepared to do before the session >>ends? Correct a mis-score? >> >81C5 ... administer and interpret these Laws ... >81C6 ... rectify an error or irregularity ... by any manner >81C7 ... assess penalties ... > > >I don't think this is anyways as clear as the Great and Good would have >us believe. > +=+ Whilst neither great nor good, I am amongst those who, in the writing of the laws, did not persist long enough in complaining about draughtsmanship that is certainly obscure in a number of places. But I am not persuaded this correspondence centres upon an impenetrable obscurity. If you take Law 81C5 in conjunction with the specific Law governing the rectification of any particular irregularity or infraction the Director's responsibility to act is clear. The *additions* that 81C6 brings to the effect of the Laws are (i) that no matter in what way he becomes aware of an irregularity the Director must apply the relevant law; (ii) specification of the point in time when that responsibility terminates. When pertaining to time 'within' has at least three possible meanings: - before the end of - between the beginning and the end of - not earlier than and it would have been better to use the one of these phrases that precisely expresses the intention; because of 81C5 I am left in no doubt that the correct interpretation in 81C6 is "before the end of". Such is my opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 26 20:27:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 20:27:17 +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 UAA22529 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 20:27:06 +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 11rHea-000KCC-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:26:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 01:57:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Invisible misinformation References: <3.0.1.32.19991126091717.00964320@chance.otago.ac.nz> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991126091717.00964320@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: >I suspect that I am just very dense ... or rather more so than usual, but >I've managed to completely tangle my mental web about a hand from the club >last night. > >(I also think this topic has been covered before here, but for the life of >me I can't find it.) > >So here's what happened: > >W N E S >p p 1n(12-14) x(penalties) >p p p > >Before the opening lead, west quite properly informs NS that his pass was >supposed to force a redouble (and hence be alertable.) This is quite an >admirable and ethical admission since he has a 5422 nine count which was >intending to sit the redouble. East quite readily agrees that west's >explanation is correct. Anyhow, 1nx makes 2. > >There is a clear mistaken explanation (or what amounts to the same thing) >owing to the failure to alert the pass. > >On the other hand, it could be argued that the damage is caused by a >mistaken bid (the pass instead of xx). There are two things, then, an infraction [MI about the pass] followed by a misbid [the final pass]. Is damage caused by the MI: ok, just consider what would have happened if the pass had been described correctly, presumably by an alert. If you believe the bidding might go differently, specifically North's pass, and that N/S might get a better score thereby, then the MI has caused damage. If not, then there is no damage consequent on the 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 Fri Nov 26 21:22:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 21:22:21 +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 VAA22658 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 21:22:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-22-50.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.22.50]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA27198 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:22:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383D4745.4C059B09@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 15:27:17 +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: MI? - yes I think so Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Belgian first division: BOARD 1 - N - none Q J 6 4 W N E S Q J 6 5 2 p p 2C(1) Q J 10 X 3D(2) p p(3) 7 X p 3NT ap A K 8 5 10 9 2 A K 3 10 7 4 (1) weak in diamonds or strong 6 5 K 9 3 (2) support diamonds A K 6 3 Q 10 9 5 (3) weak in diamonds 7 3 9 8 lead : D2 (small promises) A 8 7 4 2 J 8 4 2 During the play, East asks a second time of North if South promises six diamonds, and he receives a positive response. East cashes the major AK and notices that South cannot have 4 clubs. So he cashes AK of clubs and goes one off. I asked South why he opened, and he replied that non-vulnerable with 5 points in third seat, he wanted to do "something". North-South stated they had never ever considered opening a weak two on a five card. When asked, South said he'd probably do it again under the same circumstances. So I ruled misinformation. Agreed? Of course I ruled no damage. Even with the correct info ("once in a blue moon, in third seat, he might try something if he is weak") the line of play is the same. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 26 23:16:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 23:16:35 +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 XAA23418 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 23:16:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-114.access.net.il [213.8.1.114] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28911; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 14:15:51 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <383E7A0D.81D60688@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 14:16:13 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Schoderb@aol.com CC: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C References: <0.d76d3e83.256c5187@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk They will find someone ....in OUTER MONGOLIA....... If needed , I'll use my influence at Dalay Lama , for Tibet. Dany Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 11/23/99 3:05:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, > t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > > > >> > "I saw it". "How to win friends and influence people" Part 1. > > >> > > >> Try to become a politician in your hometown, there you need that kind of > > >> qualities. > > >> > > > > > >Given the qualities of the front runner (or is he still ?) > > >for Mayor of London, this is the gravest insult made in > > >three years of blml. > > > > This proofs my statement, but if you want me to apologize I do > > > > ton > > > > > > >-- > > >Herman DE WAEL > > >Antwerpen Belgium > > >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > > > > > Kind of interesting to find a Belgian and a Hollander resorting to an example > from England. Sure you guys couldn't find someone closer to your own homes > to make your point? > > Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 26 23:56:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 23:56:57 +1100 (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 XAA23549 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 23:56:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 13:56:23 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA10457 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 13:49:36 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: MI? - yes I think so Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 13:45:53 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Belgian first division: > >BOARD 1 - N - none > Q J 6 4 W N E S > Q J 6 5 2 p p 2C(1) > Q J 10 X 3D(2) p p(3) > 7 X p 3NT ap >A K 8 5 10 9 2 >A K 3 10 7 4 (1) weak in diamonds or strong >6 5 K 9 3 (2) support diamonds >A K 6 3 Q 10 9 5 (3) weak in diamonds > 7 3 > 9 8 lead : D2 (small promises) > A 8 7 4 2 > J 8 4 2 > >During the play, East asks a second time of North if South >promises six diamonds, and he receives a positive response. > >East cashes the major AK and notices that South cannot have >4 clubs. >So he cashes AK of clubs and goes one off. > >I asked South why he opened, and he replied that >non-vulnerable with 5 points in third seat, he wanted to do >"something". > >North-South stated they had never ever considered opening a >weak two on a five card. >When asked, South said he'd probably do it again under the >same circumstances. > >So I ruled misinformation. Agreed? > >Of course I ruled no damage. Even with the correct info >("once in a blue moon, in third seat, he might try something >if he is weak") the line of play is the same. If NS really never considered opening a weak two on a 5-card suit, then there is no misinformation - this time. But if South has a habit of "doing something not vulnerable in third seat", then North knows that partner in this situation not always has what he promises. In that case there is misinformation - North should have told that partner has this habit. Of course, if South only promises 5-card diamonds, this doesn't change anything about the line of play. If anyone has a singleton in clubs, it is probably still South, so I would play exactly the same. So at any rate, there is no damage. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 01:25:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 01:25:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f10.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA23795 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 01:24:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 20502 invoked by uid 0); 26 Nov 1999 14:24:10 -0000 Message-ID: <19991126142410.20501.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 06:24:10 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: MI? - yes I think so Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 06:24:10 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Belgian first division: > > > >BOARD 1 - N - none > > Q J 6 4 W N E S > > Q J 6 5 2 p p 2C(1) > > Q J 10 X 3D(2) p p(3) > > 7 X p 3NT ap > >A K 8 5 10 9 2 > >A K 3 10 7 4 (1) weak in diamonds or strong > >6 5 K 9 3 (2) support diamonds > >A K 6 3 Q 10 9 5 (3) weak in diamonds > > 7 3 > > 9 8 lead : D2 (small promises) > > A 8 7 4 2 > > J 8 4 2 > > > >During the play, East asks a second time of North if South > >promises six diamonds, and he receives a positive response. > > > >East cashes the major AK and notices that South cannot have > >4 clubs. > >So he cashes AK of clubs and goes one off. > > > >I asked South why he opened, and he replied that > >non-vulnerable with 5 points in third seat, he wanted to do > >"something". > > > >North-South stated they had never ever considered opening a > >weak two on a five card. > >When asked, South said he'd probably do it again under the > >same circumstances. > > > >So I ruled misinformation. Agreed? > > > >Of course I ruled no damage. Even with the correct info > >("once in a blue moon, in third seat, he might try something > >if he is weak") the line of play is the same. > I think that East went off in this contract of his own accord. South either had five or six diamonds. If he had six, then his shape would presumably be 3-3-6-1, if he had three cards in both majors. This is based on the assumption that he wouldn't open a weak two with a four card major on the side. This would give North 3-4-2-4 shape, a very dubious raise, don't you think? For every card you remove from the majors in the South hand, you put it in the club suit. This gives him a maximum of three clubs *if he has six diamonds*. If he has only five diamonds, he could have up to four clubs. North has stated that the partnership agreement is that the diamond suit has six cards in it (we can discount the possibility of it having seven). Presumably East was watching the N/S signals, and presumably they were false-carding like mad in a legitimate attempt to mislead him. The bid of two diamonds was no less legitimate. South has between one and four clubs. I suggest that he is more likely to have 2-4, and that East should have played accordingly. The matter of the explanation is a red herring. The only damage has been inflicted by East on himself. Should, by the way, an injured East claim that he has no reason to suppose that South has no side card major, I would reply that by the same token he has no reason to suppose that South has a six card suit. Given the auction, quite honestly, I'd be amazed if South did have six diamonds! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 01:53:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 01:42:21 +1100 (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 BAA23880 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 01:42:13 +1100 (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 JAA17097 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:42:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991126094309.006900d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:43:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation In-Reply-To: <38394441.F2C59444@village.uunet.be> References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:25 PM 11/22/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >When a player bids hearts when he has spades, he is at least >hoping that partner has the same idea. That will be ruled >against. > >The Director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than >Mistaken Bid, in the absense of evidence to the contrary. Herman has repeatedly cited this instruction, from the footnote to L75D2, in support of the dWs, but I suggest that it is not applicable to the point of the debate. If one reads the entire footnote, one discovers that its sole function is to "clarify responsibilities of the players (and the Director) *after a misleading explanation has been given to the opponents*". The context establishes clearly that by "misleading explanation" the law refers to an explanation which misleads the opponents as to the partnership's agreements, not one which misleads them as to partner's actual holding. The anti-dWs argues that an explanantion which is truthful and complete is not misleading as to the partnership's agreements when those agreements are neither explicit nor established "through... partnership experience", in which case the footnote, including the cited parenthetical, is irrelevant and does not apply. Note that Example 1 in the footnote describes a case in which the "explanation is an infraction of Law [because] East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement", while Example 2 describes a case in which "the partnership agreement is as explained". The dWs is based on the premise that when the explanation is misleading as to partner's actual holding, one or the other of these must be the case (in which case the cited statement tells us which takes presumptive precedence when there is no definitive evidence one way or the other). But that is only true if we accept the premise that there must perforce be a partnership agreement (in order for the footnote to come into play at all). Thus the underlying debate here is over whether the Law requires (or presumes) that for every call taken, there must be a partnership agreement as to its meaning. IMO it does 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 Sat Nov 27 02:06:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:06:44 +1100 (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 CAA24119 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:06:36 +1100 (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 KAA17915 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:06:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991126100735.006907c4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:07:35 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation In-Reply-To: <38393F3E.750DBC29@village.uunet.be> References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:03 PM 11/22/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >Of course, but please remember that the main topic of this >thread was not "no agreement", but rather "doubt". I have >often said that there can be cases where "no agreement" is >correct. We are trying to establish what should happen when >a player is in doubt about the agreement. OK? Nobody is denying that when there is a clear and definitive agreement about the meaning of a call the opponents are entitled to knowledge of that agreement. But the actual examples which have generated all the controversy in this thread all start with doubt about the meaning of the call, and seem to revolve around the issue of whether doubt about the meaning of the call creates a presumption of doubt about the partnership's agreement about the meaning of the call. If the dWs applies only when the latter can be independently established without making such a presumption, then perhaps there has been nothing to argue about all along. It seems to me that the debate has been about what to do when the former is known to the be case but the latter is not known independently, but, according to the dWs (but not the anti-dWs), is nevertheless to be presumed based on the former. 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 Nov 27 02:51:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:51:37 +1100 (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 CAA24277 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:51:30 +1100 (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 KAA19436 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:51:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991126105230.0071ec54@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:52:30 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: References: <01bf36c5$fb5e9440$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:38 AM 11/25/99 +0000, John wrote: >>>>I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >>>>hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >>>>of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. >>>> >>>>However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have >>>>adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would >>>>be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust >>>>to). > >but in this case I had formed an opinion. Supposing I had not formed an >opinion and the players told me they were content? Again we are back >into the co-incidence that I happened to have studied the hand records. >To be clear though, I have not been asked to make a ruling - so should >I? > >Perhaps the players have felt that there was no infraction of Law. - >otherwise they'd have asked for the ruling. Should I second guess them? >Sometimes I'll ask at the end of the hand "Everything ok?" and they say >"yes" when, for example I haven't studied the hand. Do I now go off and >check the hand and adjust? I think that when John was called to the table initially, that constituted the player "asking for a ruling". John's instruction to call him back at the end of the hand was his implementation of the mechanics of making that ruling, and the fact that the player failed to do so should not be interpreted as a withdrawal of his original "asking for a ruling". IMO, John should have adjusted the result, and erred in accepting a false analogy between not having been called back and not having been called at all. 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 Nov 27 03:33:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:33:44 +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 DAA24738 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:33:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.9.144] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11rOJK-0004mM-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 16:33:27 +0000 Message-ID: <001501bf382b$b8044520$9009063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <19991126142410.20501.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: MI? - yes I think so Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 16:31:39 -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 Norman Scorbie wrote: > North has stated that the partnership agreement is that the diamond suit has > six cards in it (we can discount the possibility of it having seven). That would be a useful agreement. However, one would also need to decide whether it should be the spade suit or the heart suit that had twenty cards in it. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 03:38:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:38:30 +1100 (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 DAA24765 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:38:22 +1100 (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 LAA21305 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:38:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991126113922.00727300@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:39:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Invisible misinformation In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991126091717.00964320@chance.otago.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:17 AM 11/26/99 +1300, Michael wrote: >W N E S >p p 1n(12-14) x(penalties) >p p p > >Before the opening lead, west quite properly informs NS that his pass was >supposed to force a redouble (and hence be alertable.) This is quite an >admirable and ethical admission since he has a 5422 nine count which was >intending to sit the redouble. East quite readily agrees that west's >explanation is correct. Anyhow, 1nx makes 2. > >There is a clear mistaken explanation (or what amounts to the same thing) >owing to the failure to alert the pass. > >On the other hand, it could be argued that the damage is caused by a >mistaken bid (the pass instead of xx). > >So do NS get and adjustment, or is it "rub of the green"? I don't see how N-S were damaged by either the MI or the mistaken bid. In order for there to have been damage, it must be the case that N would have taken some action other than pass had he been correctly informed as to E-W's agreements about W's second pass, and I see no reason to suspect that this might be the case. If anything, the "rub of the green" gave N-S -280 (or -380) when they might have gotten -760 (or -1160). What N might have done on the auction P-P-1NT-X-P-P-XX-P-P-? can't matter. If one were to decide to give N-S an adjusted result, what could it possibly be? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 03:51:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:23:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24718 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:23:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-236.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.236]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA28035; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 17:23:33 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001301bf2ba6$c1d9b8a0$d5b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:09:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I like your persistence, what terribble world we would be in if somebody was able to convince somebody else. Still let me try it in another way. >Other parts of 81C tell me about assessing penalties (which would >include restoring equity (64C)), This is a wrong opinion. Assessing penalties is really something different from restoring equity. An assigned adjusted score has nothing to do with a penalty, is just given to restore equity. penalties are given above or unrelated to adjusted scores. ton >81C6 does not. >And right so. OK, it isn't much, just a small law telling us to act if we become aware of an irregularity (81C6). May I ask you to refer to at least one other small law telling you that you should not act in such a case (for example a not noticed revoke)? I get the impresion that your education is leading you, which has some advantages. It makes it possible to communicate about the laws for example. But it might have disadvantages as well, in case something went wrong in your education (I am restricting myself to your TD-education). ton > >I don't think this is anyways as clear as the Great and Good would have >us believe. Some people live in their own foggy world (Grattan, you may use this one, but mention my name) ton I > >cheers john >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 03:56:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:56:05 +1100 (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 DAA24812 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:55:58 +1100 (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 LAA21963 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:56:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991126115658.0072443c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:56:58 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: MI? - yes I think so In-Reply-To: <383D4745.4C059B09@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:27 PM 11/25/99 +0100, Herman wrote: >BOARD 1 - N - none > Q J 6 4 W N E S > Q J 6 5 2 p p 2C(1) > Q J 10 X 3D(2) p p(3) > 7 X p 3NT ap >A K 8 5 10 9 2 >A K 3 10 7 4 (1) weak in diamonds or strong >6 5 K 9 3 (2) support diamonds >A K 6 3 Q 10 9 5 (3) weak in diamonds > 7 3 > 9 8 lead : D2 (small promises) > A 8 7 4 2 > J 8 4 2 > >During the play, East asks a second time of North if South >promises six diamonds, and he receives a positive response. > >East cashes the major AK and notices that South cannot have >4 clubs. >So he cashes AK of clubs and goes one off. > >I asked South why he opened, and he replied that >non-vulnerable with 5 points in third seat, he wanted to do >"something". > >North-South stated they had never ever considered opening a >weak two on a five card. >When asked, South said he'd probably do it again under the >same circumstances. > >So I ruled misinformation. Agreed? No, not unless you believe S was lying to you. If you accept his reply as truthful, L75B applies; no MI. That S said he'd probably do it again means that N's assertion that the auction promises 6 diamonds would, if repeated the next time this situation arises, be MI, but that doesn't matter now. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 04:10:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 04:10:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f113.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.113]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA24880 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 04:10:16 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 98685 invoked by uid 0); 26 Nov 1999 17:09:38 -0000 Message-ID: <19991126170938.98684.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:09:38 PST X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI? - yes I think so Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:09:38 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Burn wrote: >Norman Scorbie wrote: > > > North has stated that the partnership agreement is that the diamond >suit has > > six cards in it (we can discount the possibility of it having >seven). > >That would be a useful agreement. However, one would also need to >decide whether it should be the spade suit or the heart suit that had >twenty cards in it. > Thank you for the helpful sarcasm. In my haste to impart my opinion and knowledge to a wider audience than Mrs. Scorbie and the cats I inadvertantly used the word 'suit' instead of the word 'holding'. I am duly chastened, and look forward to a weekend in a darkened room with a scourge. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 04:45:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 04:45:06 +1100 (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 EAA24952 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 04:44:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from p47s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.72] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11r88t-0003Zi-00; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 23:17:35 +0000 Message-ID: <002a01bf3835$ae6a7de0$488193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "John Probst" , Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 17:34:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: John Probst ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 November 1999 17:07 Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >I like your persistence, what terribble world we would be in if somebody was >able to convince somebody else. >Still let me try it in another way. > > >>Other parts of 81C tell me about assessing penalties (which would >>include restoring equity (64C)), > >This is a wrong opinion. Assessing penalties is really something different >from restoring equity. An assigned adjusted score has nothing to do with a >penalty, is just given to restore equity. penalties are given above or >unrelated to adjusted scores. > >ton > >>81C6 does not. > >>And right so. > >OK, it isn't much, just a small law telling us to act if we become aware of >an irregularity (81C6). May I ask you to refer to at least one other small >law telling you that you should not act in such a case (for example a not >noticed revoke)? I get the impresion that your education is leading you, >which has some advantages. It makes it possible to communicate about the >laws for example. But it might have disadvantages as well, in case something >went wrong in your education (I am restricting myself to your TD-education). > >ton > > >> >>I don't think this is anyways as clear as the Great and Good would have >>us believe. > >Some people live in their own foggy world (Grattan, you may use this one, >but mention my name) > +=+ An occasion to prove I am not ton deaf? (As ton will sometimes have thought.) We *all* live in a foggy world, the unfortunate one is he who believes what he sees is the substance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 04:49:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:16:05 +1100 (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 DAA24686 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:15:52 +1100 (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 LAA20349 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:16:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991126111650.0071f8e8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:16:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: <19991125032727.49170.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <01bf36df$f5ab14a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:27 PM 11/24/99 -0600, Roger wrote: >---- Original Message ----- >From: Anne Jones > >> Players are not expected to know about LAs. > >> Anne > >I would like to know why. > >I can think of no occurrence so frequent where a player is likely to be put >in a position of negatively impacting his score than having UI available. >The law requires that players with UI must distinguish LAs in selecting >their future actions. Since players are not expected to understand LAs >could it be that it is desired for players to infract the restrictions of >L16? > >No. I say that it ought be expected that every player of experience or who >routinely scores high in his section should understand the LA. And newer >players be introduced gently to the matter that when they are ready they >might grasp it. It is by this education that this competitive past time >will be enjoyed by ladies and gentlemen. I have just returned from the (ACBL) NABC in Boston. Twice, situations arose at my table in which an opponent was in possession of UI and the TD was called. These were TDs who are, presumably, deemed competent by the ACBL, as they were working at the NABC. In both case, the TD's instruction to the opponents was to ignore the UI and bid on as though no UI had been given. Nothing was said in either case about LAs, suggested calls, or anything else pertinent to L16. As it happened, there was no damage and no appeal in either case. But I was left feeling very uneasy about the position an AC might have found itself in. If the AC were to adjudicate the result properly based on L16, and then explain their ruling to the OS, how would they then respond to the aggrieved player who says "but I did exactly what the director told me to do, so how can you now say that I did anything wrong?" I can only assume that the TD's statements accorded with accepted ACBL guidelines or practice, so the issue cannot be dismissed out of hand as mere director error; I do not believe for a minute that an AC would be likely to have ruled either case under L82C rather than L16 (were this the case, we would see such rulings all the time, and we don't). In a casual conversation later, I mentioned this to an ACBL official (not a TD), and got the reply that players weren't expected to know L16; that law was "for committees", which appears to be similar to Anne's position. I agree with Roger here; this view can only cause trouble, and goes a long way towards explaining why inexperienced players fail to grasp the distinction between receiving an unfavorable adjustment in these situations and being "called liars". 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 Nov 27 05:27:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 05:27:30 +1100 (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 FAA25049 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 05:27:20 +1100 (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 11rQ5H-0002Se-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 18:27:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 17:31:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C References: <01bf36c5$fb5e9440$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <3.0.1.32.19991126105230.0071ec54@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991126105230.0071ec54@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:38 AM 11/25/99 +0000, John wrote: > >>>>>I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >>>>>hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >>>>>of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. >>>>> >>>>>However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have >>>>>adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would >>>>>be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust >>>>>to). >> >>but in this case I had formed an opinion. Supposing I had not formed an >>opinion and the players told me they were content? Again we are back >>into the co-incidence that I happened to have studied the hand records. >>To be clear though, I have not been asked to make a ruling - so should >>I? >> >>Perhaps the players have felt that there was no infraction of Law. - >>otherwise they'd have asked for the ruling. Should I second guess them? >>Sometimes I'll ask at the end of the hand "Everything ok?" and they say >>"yes" when, for example I haven't studied the hand. Do I now go off and >>check the hand and adjust? > >I think that when John was called to the table initially, that constituted >the player "asking for a ruling". John's instruction to call him back at >the end of the hand was his implementation of the mechanics of making that >ruling, and the fact that the player failed to do so should not be >interpreted as a withdrawal of his original "asking for a ruling". IMO, >John should have adjusted the result, and erred in accepting a false >analogy between not having been called back and not having been called at all. Legally a TD may adjust a score on his own initiative, so whether he is recalled or not is not theoretically relevant. On the other hand, I do not see that TDs really need to spend too much time looking for damage that the players do not see. So I would expect it to be highly unusual for a TD to take further a ruling for which he is not recalled. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 27 05:27:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 05:27:30 +1100 (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 FAA25048 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 05:27:19 +1100 (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 11rQ5J-000MG1-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 18:27:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 17:33:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Invisible misinformation References: <3.0.1.32.19991126091717.00964320@chance.otago.ac.nz> <3.0.1.32.19991126113922.00727300@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991126113922.00727300@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:17 AM 11/26/99 +1300, Michael wrote: > >>W N E S >>p p 1n(12-14) x(penalties) >>p p p >> >>Before the opening lead, west quite properly informs NS that his pass was >>supposed to force a redouble (and hence be alertable.) This is quite an >>admirable and ethical admission since he has a 5422 nine count which was >>intending to sit the redouble. East quite readily agrees that west's >>explanation is correct. Anyhow, 1nx makes 2. >> >>There is a clear mistaken explanation (or what amounts to the same thing) >>owing to the failure to alert the pass. >> >>On the other hand, it could be argued that the damage is caused by a >>mistaken bid (the pass instead of xx). >> >>So do NS get and adjustment, or is it "rub of the green"? > >I don't see how N-S were damaged by either the MI or the mistaken bid. In >order for there to have been damage, it must be the case that N would have >taken some action other than pass had he been correctly informed as to >E-W's agreements about W's second pass, and I see no reason to suspect that >this might be the case. If anything, the "rub of the green" gave N-S -280 >(or -380) when they might have gotten -760 (or -1160). What N might have >done on the auction P-P-1NT-X-P-P-XX-P-P-? can't matter. If one were to >decide to give N-S an adjusted result, what could it possibly be? That's the easy bit of the question: only North's pass can be affected by the MI, so you would doubtless adjust on the basis he bids 2H. This can hardly lead to -760! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 27 11:23:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:23:28 +1100 (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 LAA27401 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:23:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb5s12a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.92.182] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11rEMa-0003z1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 05:56:09 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 00:00:56 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf386a$7ab786c0$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, November 26, 1999 6:49 PM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >Eric Landau wrote: >>At 02:38 AM 11/25/99 +0000, John wrote: >> >>>>>>I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >>>>>>hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >>>>>>of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. >>>>>> >>>>>>However, I studied the hand records while they played and would have >>>>>>adjusted had I been called back - (It was obvious what the result would >>>>>>be as the hand was actually played, and it was obvious what I'd adjust >>>>>>to). >>> >>>but in this case I had formed an opinion. Supposing I had not formed an >>>opinion and the players told me they were content? Again we are back >>>into the co-incidence that I happened to have studied the hand records. >>>To be clear though, I have not been asked to make a ruling - so should >>>I? >>> >>>Perhaps the players have felt that there was no infraction of Law. - >>>otherwise they'd have asked for the ruling. Should I second guess them? >>>Sometimes I'll ask at the end of the hand "Everything ok?" and they say >>>"yes" when, for example I haven't studied the hand. Do I now go off and >>>check the hand and adjust? >> >>I think that when John was called to the table initially, that constituted >>the player "asking for a ruling". John's instruction to call him back at >>the end of the hand was his implementation of the mechanics of making that >>ruling, and the fact that the player failed to do so should not be >>interpreted as a withdrawal of his original "asking for a ruling". IMO, >>John should have adjusted the result, and erred in accepting a false >>analogy between not having been called back and not having been called at all. > > Legally a TD may adjust a score on his own initiative, so whether he >is recalled or not is not theoretically relevant. > > On the other hand, I do not see that TDs really need to spend too much >time looking for damage that the players do not see. So I would expect >it to be highly unusual for a TD to take further a ruling for which he >is not recalled. RTFLB. "...standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." Granted a couple of GMs should realise if they have been damaged, but how often do you hear "It's OK, he had his bid" just because it is a bid they might have made. If you had decided that the call made was influenced by the UI and you do not insist that the NOs accept a favourable adjustment you are just taking the easy way out, not doing your L81C5 duty. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 11:23:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:23:32 +1100 (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 LAA27403 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:23:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb5s12a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.92.182] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11rEMd-0003z1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 05:56:12 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Australia Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 00:25:02 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf386d$d86bd700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, November 25, 1999 2:36 AM Subject: Australia > > > G'day! > > I shall be in Australia for most of January and February. I am >directing at the Summer Festival in Canberra from 12th to 21st January, >and directing at the Gold Coast Congress near Brisbane from 19th to 26th >February. I shall be in Sydney from the 24th to 30th January, and I >have no idea where for the first two and a half weeks of February! > > I should very much like to meet members of BLML who live in Australia >- or anyone who is attending these events. > > I am also looking for something to do in the first half of February. >No doubt I can just act as a tourist, but if there were an offer of >directing another bridge event in Australia or New Zealand in that time >I should appreciate it. Other offers would be appreciated as well - >apart from Bridge my main interest is trains [and cats, of course, but I >hardly want to see a lot of Australian cats!]. > > If you have any suggestions or offers please email me. Just a suggestion. How about one of those hats with corks hanging from it, to wear when you TD the next EBU summer meeting. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 11:23:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:23:31 +1100 (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 LAA27400 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:23:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb5s12a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.92.182] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11rEMY-0003z1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 05:56:07 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 23:46:36 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3868$7a65a820$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Friday, November 26, 1999 6:01 PM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >At 09:27 PM 11/24/99 -0600, Roger wrote: > >>---- Original Message ----- >>From: Anne Jones >> >>> Players are not expected to know about LAs. >> >>> Anne >> >>I would like to know why. >> >>I can think of no occurrence so frequent where a player is likely to be put >>in a position of negatively impacting his score than having UI available. >>The law requires that players with UI must distinguish LAs in selecting >>their future actions. Since players are not expected to understand LAs >>could it be that it is desired for players to infract the restrictions of >>L16? >> >>No. I say that it ought be expected that every player of experience or who >>routinely scores high in his section should understand the LA. And newer >>players be introduced gently to the matter that when they are ready they >>might grasp it. It is by this education that this competitive past time >>will be enjoyed by ladies and gentlemen. > >I have just returned from the (ACBL) NABC in Boston. Twice, situations >arose at my table in which an opponent was in possession of UI and the TD >was called. These were TDs who are, presumably, deemed competent by the >ACBL, as they were working at the NABC. In both case, the TD's instruction >to the opponents was to ignore the UI and bid on as though no UI had been >given. Nothing was said in either case about LAs, suggested calls, or >anything else pertinent to L16. > >As it happened, there was no damage and no appeal in either case. But I >was left feeling very uneasy about the position an AC might have found >itself in. If the AC were to adjudicate the result properly based on L16, >and then explain their ruling to the OS, how would they then respond to the >aggrieved player who says "but I did exactly what the director told me to >do, so how can you now say that I did anything wrong?" > >I can only assume that the TD's statements accorded with accepted ACBL >guidelines or practice, so the issue cannot be dismissed out of hand as >mere director error; I do not believe for a minute that an AC would be >likely to have ruled either case under L82C rather than L16 (were this the >case, we would see such rulings all the time, and we don't). > >In a casual conversation later, I mentioned this to an ACBL official (not a >TD), and got the reply that players weren't expected to know L16; that law >was "for committees", which appears to be similar to Anne's position. I >agree with Roger here; this view can only cause trouble, and goes a long >way towards explaining why inexperienced players fail to grasp the >distinction between receiving an unfavorable adjustment in these situations >and being "called liars". No that's not my position at all. I did say that I did not expect the players to know about LAs. I also said that we as TDs should not rely on a players concept of LA. I think this is right. I know very few players who own a Law book. Bridge is one of the few games where the participants do not feel the need to buy a book and learn the rules before they play the game. TDs not only have a book, but they are trained in how to interpret some of the obscure phrases like "logical alternative". It seems to me that when a TD is called to a table because someone has UI, he should explain to the the recipient his responsibility under Law 16. He might not chose to use the words logical alternative, but he must explain the concept, and he is instructed by Law to make a judgement as to consequent damage after the play of the hand. He is not instructed to "let the players decide". Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 11:23:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:23:35 +1100 (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 LAA27402 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:23:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb5s12a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.92.182] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11rEMc-0003z1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 05:56:10 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 00:22:04 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf386d$6e5024c0$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, November 26, 1999 2:11 AM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >Anne Jones wrote: >>From: David Stevenson > >>> There is no doubt that the Correction Period for a session starts no >>>later than the start of the session: anything else is just not >>>practical. > >>I cannot agree with this. The correction period refereed to in L81C6 is >>that defined in L79. It talks of correcting errors in computing or >>tabulating >>the agreed upon score. > > So if an error in computing or tabulating the agreed upon score is >found *before* the end of the session you could not legally deal with >it? > >> I am convinced that the correction period is the >>period after all play ceases. There are few other references to the >>correction period. (Law 69B is the first mention of the concept of a >>correction period at all) > > True: but there is no reference to the start of the period and it is >ludicrous to have it starting any later than the start of the session. I don't think "ludicrous" is the word you should have chosen. You should be more tolerant of the opinion of others. I am beginning to wonder if I was wrong about this. It is actually the wording of Law 69 that is almost convincing me. The "Definitions" in the Law book define "auction period"and the "play period". I would like to see a definition of correction period appear and I would like to see it state "the period of time from 30mins before the announced start time of the event, to 30mins after the posting of the final score in pairs, and to the start of the next match in teams, except that in a teams event the end of the correction period after the last match is 30 mins after the posting of the final score." with a ref to the SO being able to change it etc. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 14:16:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA28579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 14:16:10 +1100 (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 OAA28569 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 14:16:02 +1100 (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 11rYL2-000IDw-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:15:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:13:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: <001301bf2ba6$c1d9b8a0$d5b4f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001301bf2ba6$c1d9b8a0$d5b4f1c3@kooijman>, ton kooijman writes >I like your persistence, what terribble world we would be in if somebody was >able to convince somebody else. >Still let me try it in another way. > ok, I give up on the revoke :)) now how about the UI? briefly. I'm called to a table during an auction and do the usual piece. 1) I'm busy, I wander back and say "OK?". They say "Yes" 2) I'm bored, check the hand records and decide to adjust. I wander back. They say "No problem" 3) I check the hand records then get busy. No call. My TD-education is ok btw. ... although DWS thinks I'm too practical. the good players play in my games (with a few notable exceptions I'm entirely delighted about) and the improvers learn and cease causing problems with the good players. Being practical has its benefits. 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 14:16:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA28578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 14:16:09 +1100 (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 OAA28568 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 14:15:59 +1100 (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 11rYKy-000Ofd-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:15:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 02:57:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991126105230.0071ec54@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19991126105230.0071ec54@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 02:38 AM 11/25/99 +0000, John wrote: > >>>>>I had an analogous problem a few weeks ago. I was called over a >>>>>hesitation, did the usual bit and asked them to call me back at the end >>>>>of the hand. No call ensued. Fine. >>>>> snip > >I think that when John was called to the table initially, that constituted >the player "asking for a ruling". Hmmm. L72A6 and 72B1 would confirm that view IMO. Funnily enough I had another one on Thursday night. UI, and I was called back but the NOs were content with their score. I would have adjusted but a top was a top. I got out of that one by giving the offending side an explanation of why their actions were dubious, and what they should do to try to avoid it. Everyone cheered up and I'd educated a pair. I thought that was a win-win, although illegal :)) chs john (who is too practical for his own good) -- 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 21:29:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 21:29:45 +1100 (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 VAA29163 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 21:29:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-17-154.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.17.154]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11520 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:29:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383EA0E8.6144ECA@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 16:02:00 +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: MI? - yes I think so References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > > > If NS really never considered opening a weak two on a 5-card > suit, then there is no misinformation - this time. > But if South has a habit of "doing something not vulnerable > in third seat", then North knows that partner in this > situation not always has what he promises. In that case there > is misinformation - North should have told that partner has > this habit. > Am I really the only one who finds this argument unsatisfctory? Oh, I know it is true, of course, but how are NS going to prove this? How do you prove you have never done this before ? Apart from saying, I have never had that particular hand before. Which is always true, of course. Isn't it far more consistent to rule according to the footnote: unless proof to the contrary, the TD shall rule MI. If we are going to rule that you can do anything once, then we need a vast network of reporting. Totally unworkable. I was really expecting your responses to lie around the question : "is _always a six-card_ synonymous with _99% of the time six, very occasionally five_" -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 22:14:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:14:08 +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 WAA29222 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:13:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-7.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.7]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA19471 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:13:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383FB6D9.C53CAB1A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:47:53 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991126094309.006900d0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > The anti-dWs argues that an explanantion which is truthful and complete is > not misleading as to the partnership's agreements when those agreements are > neither explicit nor established "through... partnership experience", in > which case the footnote, including the cited parenthetical, is irrelevant > and does not apply. > > Note that Example 1 in the footnote describes a case in which the > "explanation is an infraction of Law [because] East-West are entitled to an > accurate description of the North-South agreement", while Example 2 > describes a case in which "the partnership agreement is as explained". The > dWs is based on the premise that when the explanation is misleading as to > partner's actual holding, one or the other of these must be the case (in > which case the cited statement tells us which takes presumptive precedence > when there is no definitive evidence one way or the other). But that is > only true if we accept the premise that there must perforce be a > partnership agreement (in order for the footnote to come into play at all). > > Thus the underlying debate here is over whether the Law requires (or > presumes) that for every call taken, there must be a partnership agreement > as to its meaning. IMO it does not. > IMO the footnote instructs it. If the explanation does not conform to the hand, the TD is to presume mistaken explanation. I am not saying that the Law presumes that there is an agreement, but it does instruct the TD to rule as if there were. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 22:14:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:14:04 +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 WAA29220 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:13:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-7.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.7]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA19461 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:13:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383FB63C.F33C4695@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:45:16 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991126094309.006900d0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 02:25 PM 11/22/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > > >When a player bids hearts when he has spades, he is at least > >hoping that partner has the same idea. That will be ruled > >against. > > > >The Director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than > >Mistaken Bid, in the absense of evidence to the contrary. > > Herman has repeatedly cited this instruction, from the footnote to L75D2, > in support of the dWs, but I suggest that it is not applicable to the point > of the debate. If one reads the entire footnote, one discovers that its > sole function is to "clarify responsibilities of the players (and the > Director) *after a misleading explanation has been given to the > opponents*". The context establishes clearly that by "misleading > explanation" the law refers to an explanation which misleads the opponents > as to the partnership's agreements, not one which misleads them as to > partner's actual holding. > Eric, Eric, Eric, please, how can you write something like this. The whole point of the exercise is to determine what is the agreement, and then you introduce the agreement again! At the moment of ruling, we have three things : an explanation, a hand, and an agreement. The explanation and the hand are well known. If they agree, there is usually no director call. If the explanation does not corresponds to the hand, the director is called. He will ask about the agreement. Two possibilities : the agreement can be "proven" in some way, and the TD will rule accordingly. or the agreement cannot be proven. In that case the footnote instructs the TD to regard the "hand" meaning as the agreement. What is so strange about that ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 22:14:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:14:13 +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 WAA29233 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:14:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-7.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.7]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA19484 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:13:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383FBA72.25E56CAB@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:03:14 +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: MI? - yes I think so References: <3.0.1.32.19991126115658.0072443c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >North-South stated they had never ever considered opening a > >weak two on a five card. > >When asked, South said he'd probably do it again under the > >same circumstances. > > > >So I ruled misinformation. Agreed? > > No, not unless you believe S was lying to you. If you accept his reply as > truthful, L75B applies; no MI. That S said he'd probably do it again means > that N's assertion that the auction promises 6 diamonds would, if repeated > the next time this situation arises, be MI, but that doesn't matter now. > So this means that next time, with a different director, the player could say exactly the same thing, and again a director could only rule if he thought the player was lying ? Aren't the Laws at many places written just in such a way that the director need not determine whether a player were lying or not ? "Oh, I believe you, but TFLB instructs me to rule against you anyway." Isn't the game far more simple to rule if we assume that the player has the agreement ? In one way, he said it was his system ("I would do it again"). Again, the distinction. I am not saying that they have an agreement, I am ruling as if they had. Which is what the footnote tells me to assume. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 22:36:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:36:43 +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 WAA29289 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:36:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-126.access.net.il [213.8.1.126] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12209; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 13:35:59 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <383FC236.46FB0376@zahav.net.il> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 13:36:22 +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: 81C6 & 64C References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that "practical" is your "practical-spiritual" word for "ruling by educating" or "ruling and educating". If I am right I believe that Ton has no problems with this approach. My very clear opinion , as expressed by my suggestion for Law 0 : "..The game is for players , not for TDs or BLs .." , is : A. to rule - no to shun/avoid - in the spirit & scope of the Laws. B. explain people the options using their "popular/daily" words - not the very ramifications & subtleties of a BL... C. Emit/emanate an educational message "...to learn and avoid it in the future ...." Cheers Dany John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article <001301bf2ba6$c1d9b8a0$d5b4f1c3@kooijman>, ton kooijman > writes > >I like your persistence, what terribble world we would be in if somebody was > >able to convince somebody else. > >Still let me try it in another way. > > > ok, I give up on the revoke :)) > > now how about the UI? > > briefly. I'm called to a table during an auction and do the usual piece. > 1) I'm busy, I wander back and say "OK?". They say "Yes" > 2) I'm bored, check the hand records and decide to adjust. I wander > back. They say "No problem" > 3) I check the hand records then get busy. No call. > > My TD-education is ok btw. ... although DWS thinks I'm too practical. > the good players play in my games (with a few notable exceptions I'm > entirely delighted about) and the improvers learn and cease causing > problems with the good players. Being practical has its benefits. > > chs john > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 22:51:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:14:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA29228 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:14:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-7.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.7]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA19476 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:13:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <383FB854.A455881@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:54:12 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991126100735.006907c4@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 02:03 PM 11/22/99 +0100, Herman wrote: > > >Of course, but please remember that the main topic of this > >thread was not "no agreement", but rather "doubt". I have > >often said that there can be cases where "no agreement" is > >correct. We are trying to establish what should happen when > >a player is in doubt about the agreement. OK? > > Nobody is denying that when there is a clear and definitive agreement about > the meaning of a call the opponents are entitled to knowledge of that > agreement. But the actual examples which have generated all the > controversy in this thread all start with doubt about the meaning of the > call, and seem to revolve around the issue of whether doubt about the > meaning of the call creates a presumption of doubt about the partnership's > agreement about the meaning of the call. If the dWs applies only when the > latter can be independently established without making such a presumption, > then perhaps there has been nothing to argue about all along. It seems to > me that the debate has been about what to do when the former is known to > the be case but the latter is not known independently, but, according to > the dWs (but not the anti-dWs), is nevertheless to be presumed based on the > former. > ehh ? I am not one to let a few long sentences stand in my way. Let me try and read again. > Nobody is denying that when there is a clear and definitive agreement > about > the meaning of a call the opponents are entitled to knowledge of that > agreement. that is clear. > But the actual examples which have generated all the > controversy in this thread all start with doubt about the meaning of > the > call, and seem to revolve around the issue of whether doubt about the > meaning of the call creates a presumption of doubt about the > partnership's > agreement about the meaning of the call. All examples are about doubt, indeed. Doubt about the meaning of the call. Yes ? Doubt about the partnership's agreement about the meaning of the call. Isn't that the same thing ? Haven't you already warned me for using meaning when I should be saying agreement ? > If the dWs applies only when the > latter can be independently established without making such a > presumption, the latter = the agreement. independently established = proven by paper. without the presumption : what ? sorry, I don't follow. > then perhaps there has been nothing to argue about all along. Then perhaps you understand me. > It seems to > me that the debate has been about what to do when the former is known > to > the be case but the latter is not known independently, indeed. the former = the meaning is the case ? Sorry, lost me again. the agreement is not known; yes that's what we are talking of. > but, according to > the dWs (but not the anti-dWs), is nevertheless to be presumed based > on the > former. Are you saying that the TD must assume that the intended meaning is the agreement ? Yes, that is true. That's the footnote all along. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 27 22:52:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:52:16 +1100 (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 WAA29316 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:52:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from p04s01a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.81.5] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11rgO9-0003V0-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 03:51:37 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 09:48:47 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf38bc$99e08ae0$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: Saturday, November 27, 1999 3:34 AM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >In article <3.0.1.32.19991126105230.0071ec54@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau > writes > >snip >Funnily enough I had another one on Thursday night. UI, and I was >called back but the NOs were content with their score. I would have >adjusted but a top was a top. I got out of that one by giving the >offending side an explanation of why their actions were dubious, and >what they should do to try to avoid it. Everyone cheered up and I'd >educated a pair. I thought that was a win-win, although illegal :)) OK. I'll fall for it. What was illegal about what you did? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 28 03:17:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA29935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 03:17:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe42.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA29930 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 03:16:57 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 85725 invoked by uid 65534); 27 Nov 1999 16:16:16 -0000 Message-ID: <19991127161616.85724.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.166.67] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: Boston appeal 9 and judgement Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 10:16:11 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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 found it interesting the effect of procedure and judgement in the case. Is it curious that the finding of fact was that 2D was intended as drury and that opener took 2D as GF, but there was no ruling as to what the actual agreement to 2D was? Also, there was no inquiry as to the values expected for that extraordinary 2D call. I note that the double of 4C should make south certain of the location of the CK, but opener's failure to bid 5H or 5D instead of the known 'fake' 5C carries the inference that he does not have those cards and without one of them 12 tricks are a dubious proposition. Why did the experts that were consulted not mention this aspect of the bidding in their evaluation of what was logical [alternative]? Text from the Saturday Boston ACBL Daily Bulletin: APPEALS CASE 9 Subject (Unauthorized Information): Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 22 Nov 99, First Session Bd: 15 Dlr: South Vul: N/S A Q J 7 6 Q J 4 A 7 2 A 10 9 3 2 4 8 6 3 A 5 2 K Q J 9 8 6 5 3 8 4 K J 7 6 5 2 K 10 8 5 K 10 9 7 10 4 Q 9 3 West North East South Pass Pass 1S Pass 2D (1) Pass 2NT Pass 3S Pass 4C Dbl Pass Pass 4D Pass 4S Pass 5C Pass 5 All Pass (1) Intended as Drury; not Alerted The Facts: 5S made five, plus 650 for N/S. The Director was called before the opening lead was faced when South disclosed that there had been a failure to Alert. North said that he believed the 2D bid to be a two-over-one game force. West told the Director that he thought South had used the failure to Alert as unauthorized information and had failed to bid the hand as if the 2D bid had been Alerted. He also stated that he might have taken action over an artificial 2D bid. The Director ruled that there was no violation of Law 16 and that South had not bid inappropriately. The Director allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and West did not attend the hearing. E/W believed that if South had bid 5H over 5C, North would have bid 6S(and gone down) because he thought 2D was natural and game-forcing. North stated that he had not noticed South's original pass until she disclosed the failure to Alert. He said he thought South had overbid her hand and was trying to sign off with 5S. North said his 2NT bid showed "12 to 19, no, 12+." When asked if he would have opened 2NT with 21 HCP he replied that he would open 1S, not 2NT. He also said that if South had bid 5H over 5C he would have bid 6S and that a 5H bid by South would not have denied the DK. The Panel Decision: All three experts believed that 5H was a logical alternative to South's 5S bid because of North's statement that his 1S bid could have shown up to 21 HCP. Since North said he thought South had a two-over-one forcing to game hand and he would have bid 6S had South bid 5H , the Panel had to change the contract to 6S down one, plus 100 for E/W (Laws 16A and 73F1). Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 28 08:19:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 08:19:42 +1100 (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 IAA00594 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 08:19:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-012.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.204]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA36272 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 21:18:54 GMT Message-ID: <003701bf3925$cd3a81c0$cc307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: L25 again Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:21:46 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 East is dealer and Passes. South has a 17 count and puts a Pass card on the table and then immediately calls the TD so say that he did not mean to Pass. The TD takes South away from the table and learns that South was thinking about the last board. His mind was blank as he pulled the Pass card from the box. L25A or not? Regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 28 08:42:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 08:42:36 +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 IAA00636 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 08:42:28 +1100 (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 11rpbm-000Nwe-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 21:42:18 +0000 Message-ID: <44PPijCMAFQ4EwME@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 21:41:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: <01bf38bc$99e08ae0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf38bc$99e08ae0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Saturday, November 27, 1999 3:34 AM >Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C > > >>In article <3.0.1.32.19991126105230.0071ec54@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau >> writes >> >>snip > > >>Funnily enough I had another one on Thursday night. UI, and I was >>called back but the NOs were content with their score. I would have >>adjusted but a top was a top. I got out of that one by giving the >>offending side an explanation of why their actions were dubious, and >>what they should do to try to avoid it. Everyone cheered up and I'd >>educated a pair. I thought that was a win-win, although illegal :)) > >OK. I'll fall for it. What was illegal about what you did? >Anne > > The table result was a top to the NOs so I didn't adjust. It would have been even more of a top if I had adjusted. The NO's were happy, The OS were happy and learnt something. I actually said "If push came to shove I might well have adjusted here" without saying what the adjustment would have been. win-win -- 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 28 09:12:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 09:12:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from luna.worldonline.nl (luna.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00722 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 09:12:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp207-153.worldonline.nl [195.241.207.153]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA16744 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 23:12:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <01bf01bf3924$aec1b700$8ceff1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: L25A ? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 23:13:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01B9_01BF392D.0CF41EA0" 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_01B9_01BF392D.0CF41EA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The following happened to me yesterday during a pairs event. I would = appreciate your comments. I was sitting South, and the bidding went: West North East South ---- --- 1 Club pass 1 Heart pass 2 Clubs pass East, having select his 2Cl. bidding card stack, took at good look at = it, started juggling with it, looking a bit embarrassed, but finally = assumed a defiant attitude and tabled his bid. I gave him a few seconds = to make up his mind but eventually I passed. Then East came to life and = said "I think I still am allowed to correct my bid ? I remember having = read so in the latest Bulletin of our Bridge Union."=20 We asked the TD for his opinion, having described him the precise = goings-on, and his decision was a hesistant "of course East is allowed = to.", without any investigation into East's motives (this TD doesn't = read BLML ). East then corrected to 1NT, which became the final = contract. My partner misdefended, because he assumed East had a long = club suit, so East scored 7 tricks instead of 6, but that is neither = here nor there. East did misbid, and wanted to bid 1NT all along. = =20 My questions are :=20 - was L25A still applicable by the time East asked to have it applied ?=20 - do the non-offenders have a right to ask the TD to ascertain that East = really did misbid ?=20 Don't worry, the period within which to lodge an appeal has ended :-)) =20 Jac =20 ------=_NextPart_000_01B9_01BF392D.0CF41EA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The = following happened to=20 me yesterday during a pairs event. I would appreciate your=20 comments.
I was sitting South, and the bidding = went:
West    =20 North     East      =20 South
 ----         =  =20 ---          1=20 Club    pass
1 Heart  =20 pass     2 Clubs  pass
East, having select his = 2Cl. bidding=20 card stack, took at good look at it, started juggling with it, looking a = bit=20 embarrassed, but finally assumed a defiant attitude and tabled his bid. = I gave=20 him a few seconds to make up his mind but eventually I passed. Then East = came to=20 life and said "I think I still am allowed to correct my bid ? I = remember=20 having read so in the latest Bulletin of our Bridge=20 Union." 
We asked the TD for his = opinion,=20 having described him the precise goings-on, and his decision was a = hesistant=20 "of course East is allowed to.", without any investigation = into East's=20 motives (this TD doesn't read BLML <bg>). East then corrected to = 1NT,=20 which became the final contract. My partner misdefended, because he = assumed East=20 had a long club suit, so East scored 7 tricks instead of 6, but that is = neither=20 here nor there. East did misbid, and wanted to bid 1NT all=20 along.          =
My questions are : =
- was L25A still = applicable by the=20 time East asked to have it applied ? 
- do the non-offenders = have a right=20 to ask the TD to ascertain that East really did misbid ?
Don't worry, the period = within which=20 to lodge an appeal has ended   :-))
 
Jac
 
------=_NextPart_000_01B9_01BF392D.0CF41EA0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 28 12:00:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:00:45 +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 MAA01074 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:00:37 +1100 (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 11rshX-0008sn-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 01:00:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 00:59:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L25A ? In-Reply-To: <01bf01bf3924$aec1b700$8ceff1c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf01bf3924$aec1b700$8ceff1c3@default>, Jac Fuchs writes >The following happened to me yesterday during a pairs event. I would appreciate >your comments. >I was sitting South, and the bidding went: >West North East South > ---- --- 1 Club pass >1 Heart pass 2 Clubs pass >East, having select his 2Cl. bidding card stack, took at good look at it, >started juggling with it, looking a bit embarrassed, but finally assumed a >defiant attitude and tabled his bid. I gave him a few seconds to make up his >mind but eventually I passed. Then East came to life and said "I think I still >am allowed to correct my bid ? I remember having read so in the latest Bulletin >of our Bridge Union." >We asked the TD for his opinion, having described him the precise goings-on, and >his decision was a hesistant "of course East is allowed to.", without any >investigation into East's motives (this TD doesn't read BLML ). East then >corrected to 1NT, which became the final contract. My partner misdefended, >because he assumed East had a long club suit, so East scored 7 tricks instead of >6, but that is neither here nor there. East did misbid, and wanted to bid 1NT >all along. >My questions are : >- was L25A still applicable by the time East asked to have it applied ? L25A applies until partner calls, so we are in time >- do the non-offenders have a right to ask the TD to ascertain that East really >did misbid ? No, but the TD should ask the player, did you have a call of 2C in mind at the point when you pulled 2C out of the box. When the player says No, he can change it, and I always then say "The call of 2C never existed as it was not in the mind of the player when he made the call" This helps the NOs not to misdefend in these situations. Your partner should not have tried to 2nd guess East. I think L73D1 applies "... at his own risk ..." btw you've posted with tabs or a proportional font - you may notice things don't line up properly. 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 28 12:33:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:33:59 +1100 (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 MAA01124 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:33:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from p9ds06a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.118.158] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11rRYB-0006hS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 20:01:00 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 01:34:16 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3940$aeeb2740$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Anne Jones Date: Saturday, November 27, 1999 11:55 PM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >In message <01bf3930$e99da760$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones > writes >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: John (MadDog) Probst >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Date: Saturday, November 27, 1999 9:58 PM >>Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >> >> >>>In article <01bf38bc$99e08ae0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones >>> writes >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: John (MadDog) Probst >>>>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>>>Date: Saturday, November 27, 1999 3:34 AM >>>>Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <3.0.1.32.19991126105230.0071ec54@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau >>>>> writes >>>>> >>>>>snip >>>> >>>> >>>>>Funnily enough I had another one on Thursday night. UI, and I was >>>>>called back but the NOs were content with their score. I would have >>>>>adjusted but a top was a top. I got out of that one by giving the >>>>>offending side an explanation of why their actions were dubious, and >>>>>what they should do to try to avoid it. Everyone cheered up and I'd >>>>>educated a pair. I thought that was a win-win, although illegal :)) >>>> >>>>OK. I'll fall for it. What was illegal about what you did? >>>>Anne >>>> >>>> >>>The table result was a top to the NOs so I didn't adjust. It would have >>>been even more of a top if I had adjusted. The NO's were happy, The OS >>>were happy and learnt something. I actually said "If push came to shove >>>I might well have adjusted here" without saying what the adjustment >>>would have been. win-win >> >>You can fool some of the people all of the time? >> >> >>John, I feel as tho' I'm nit picking again. But how do you define damage >>as per L16A2. You really could not have adjusted in this case. >> >>Anne >> >NOs got 100, I'd ahave awarded 110. chs john But John, they were not _*damaged*_ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 28 12:33:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:33:59 +1100 (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 MAA01122 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:33:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from p9ds06a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.118.158] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11rRY8-0006hS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 20:00:57 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L25A ? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 01:32:48 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3940$7a9a83a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0040_01BF3940.7A9A83A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01BF3940.7A9A83A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't think it was ever L25A and it's now too late for Law 25B. Nice = of you to have given him time to collect his thoughts though, in view of the = fact that he appeared to be uncertain as to his choice of call.=20 Anne=20 -----Original Message----- From: Jac Fuchs To: BLML Date: Saturday, November 27, 1999 10:34 PM Subject: L25A ? =20 =20 The following happened to me yesterday during a pairs event. I would = appreciate your comments. I was sitting South, and the bidding went: West North East South ---- --- 1 Club pass 1 Heart pass 2 Clubs pass East, having select his 2Cl. bidding card stack, took at good look = at it, started juggling with it, looking a bit embarrassed, but finally = assumed a defiant attitude and tabled his bid. I gave him a few seconds = to make up his mind but eventually I passed. Then East came to life and = said "I think I still am allowed to correct my bid ? I remember having = read so in the latest Bulletin of our Bridge Union."=20 We asked the TD for his opinion, having described him the precise = goings-on, and his decision was a hesistant "of course East is allowed = to.", without any investigation into East's motives (this TD doesn't = read BLML ). East then corrected to 1NT, which became the final = contract. My partner misdefended, because he assumed East had a long = club suit, so East scored 7 tricks instead of 6, but that is neither = here nor there. East did misbid, and wanted to bid 1NT all along. = =20 My questions are :=20 - was L25A still applicable by the time East asked to have it = applied ?=20 - do the non-offenders have a right to ask the TD to ascertain that = East really did misbid ?=20 Don't worry, the period within which to lodge an appeal has ended = :-)) =20 Jac =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01BF3940.7A9A83A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't think it was ever L25A and = it's now too=20 late for Law 25B. Nice of you
to have given = him time to=20 collect his thoughts though, in view of the fact that
he appeared to be uncertain as to his choice of=20 call. 
Anne 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Jac Fuchs <jfuchs@worldonline.nl>
To:=20 BLML <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 Saturday, November 27, 1999 10:34 PM
Subject: L25A=20 ?

The = following=20 happened to me yesterday during a pairs event. I would appreciate = your=20 comments.
I was sitting South, and the bidding=20 went:
West    =20 North     = East      =20 South
 ----         =  =20 ---          1=20 Club    pass
1 Heart   = pass     2 Clubs  pass
East, having select = his 2Cl.=20 bidding card stack, took at good look at it, started juggling with = it,=20 looking a bit embarrassed, but finally assumed a defiant attitude = and tabled=20 his bid. I gave him a few seconds to make up his mind but eventually = I=20 passed. Then East came to life and said "I think I still am = allowed to=20 correct my bid ? I remember having read so in the latest Bulletin of = our=20 Bridge Union." 
We asked the TD for = his opinion,=20 having described him the precise goings-on, and his decision was a = hesistant=20 "of course East is allowed to.", without any investigation = into=20 East's motives (this TD doesn't read BLML <bg>). East then = corrected=20 to 1NT, which became the final contract. My partner misdefended, = because he=20 assumed East had a long club suit, so East scored 7 tricks instead = of 6, but=20 that is neither here nor there. East did misbid, and wanted to bid = 1NT all=20 = along.          =
My questions are : =
- was L25A still = applicable by=20 the time East asked to have it applied ? 
- do the = non-offenders have a=20 right to ask the TD to ascertain that East really did misbid ? =
Don't worry, the = period within=20 which to lodge an appeal has ended   :-))
 
Jac
 
------=_NextPart_000_0040_01BF3940.7A9A83A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 28 12:33:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:33:54 +1100 (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 MAA01120 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:33:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from p9ds06a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.118.158] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11rRY4-0006hS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 20:00:53 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L25A ? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 01:30:46 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3940$31ca60a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01BF3940.31CA60A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BF3940.31CA60A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't think it was ever L25A and it's now too late for Law 25B. Nice = of you to have given him time to collect his thoughts though, in view of the = fact that he appeared to be uncertain as to his choice of call.=20 Anne=20 -----Original Message----- From: Jac Fuchs To: BLML Date: Saturday, November 27, 1999 10:34 PM Subject: L25A ? =20 =20 The following happened to me yesterday during a pairs event. I would = appreciate your comments. I was sitting South, and the bidding went: West North East South ---- --- 1 Club pass 1 Heart pass 2 Clubs pass East, having select his 2Cl. bidding card stack, took at good look = at it, started juggling with it, looking a bit embarrassed, but finally = assumed a defiant attitude and tabled his bid. I gave him a few seconds = to make up his mind but eventually I passed. Then East came to life and = said "I think I still am allowed to correct my bid ? I remember having = read so in the latest Bulletin of our Bridge Union."=20 We asked the TD for his opinion, having described him the precise = goings-on, and his decision was a hesistant "of course East is allowed = to.", without any investigation into East's motives (this TD doesn't = read BLML ). East then corrected to 1NT, which became the final = contract. My partner misdefended, because he assumed East had a long = club suit, so East scored 7 tricks instead of 6, but that is neither = here nor there. East did misbid, and wanted to bid 1NT all along. = =20 My questions are :=20 - was L25A still applicable by the time East asked to have it = applied ?=20 - do the non-offenders have a right to ask the TD to ascertain that = East really did misbid ?=20 Don't worry, the period within which to lodge an appeal has ended = :-)) =20 Jac =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BF3940.31CA60A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't think it was ever L25A and = it's now too=20 late for Law 25B. Nice of you
to have given = him time to=20 collect his thoughts though, in view of the fact that
he appeared to be uncertain as to his choice of=20 call. 
Anne 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Jac Fuchs <jfuchs@worldonline.nl>
To:=20 BLML <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 Saturday, November 27, 1999 10:34 PM
Subject: L25A=20 ?

The = following=20 happened to me yesterday during a pairs event. I would appreciate = your=20 comments.
I was sitting South, and the bidding=20 went:
West    =20 North     = East      =20 South
 ----         =  =20 ---          1=20 Club    pass
1 Heart   = pass     2 Clubs  pass
East, having select = his 2Cl.=20 bidding card stack, took at good look at it, started juggling with = it,=20 looking a bit embarrassed, but finally assumed a defiant attitude = and tabled=20 his bid. I gave him a few seconds to make up his mind but eventually = I=20 passed. Then East came to life and said "I think I still am = allowed to=20 correct my bid ? I remember having read so in the latest Bulletin of = our=20 Bridge Union." 
We asked the TD for = his opinion,=20 having described him the precise goings-on, and his decision was a = hesistant=20 "of course East is allowed to.", without any investigation = into=20 East's motives (this TD doesn't read BLML <bg>). East then = corrected=20 to 1NT, which became the final contract. My partner misdefended, = because he=20 assumed East had a long club suit, so East scored 7 tricks instead = of 6, but=20 that is neither here nor there. East did misbid, and wanted to bid = 1NT all=20 = along.          =
My questions are : =
- was L25A still = applicable by=20 the time East asked to have it applied ? 
- do the = non-offenders have a=20 right to ask the TD to ascertain that East really did misbid ? =
Don't worry, the = period within=20 which to lodge an appeal has ended   :-))
 
Jac
 
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BF3940.31CA60A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 28 12:33:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:33:53 +1100 (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 MAA01121 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:33:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from p9ds06a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.118.158] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11rRY7-0006hS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Nov 1999 20:00:55 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L25 again Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 01:31:56 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3940$5b3d56e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No. Law 25B :-) Anne -----Original Message----- From: Fearghal O'Boyle To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, November 27, 1999 9:32 PM Subject: L25 again >East is dealer and Passes. >South has a 17 count and puts a Pass card on the table and then immediately >calls the TD so say that he did not mean to Pass. > >The TD takes South away from the table and learns that South was thinking >about the last board. His mind was blank as he pulled the Pass card from >the box. > >L25A or not? > >Regards, >Fearghal > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 28 15:24:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:24:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@24-25-195-37.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01499 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:24:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.106]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 27 Nov 1999 20:24:07 -0800 Message-ID: <004801bf3958$6edf5aa0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <006a01bf32be$478d97a0$7684d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 20:18:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: Craig Senior To: Marvin L. French ; Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 10:45 AM Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? > Please note that in my post that started this little exchange I suggested a > "PP(w)". I understand that abbreviation to mean "Procedural > Penalty-Warning", or a polite reminder from director to the offenders that > they really must alert when it is required or that they could have a score > adjusted against them in the future. When the TD has been called to the > table and asked to rule, I should think it remiss of him not to say this to > an offender even if there has been no redressable damage. What is arcane or > bizarre about that? > That the warning is not given to all those who violate Alert regulations. Do you really players to call the TD every time someone has been guilty of harmless MI, so they can get their warning?. And besides, there is no global database to track such warnings, which makes them meaningless. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 28 16:16:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:16:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01540 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:16:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-211-223.s223.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.211.223] helo=hdavis) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 11rwgn-0005Qv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 00:15:58 -0500 Message-ID: <001b01bf395f$a47b8ce0$dfd33ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991126094309.006900d0@pop.cais.com> <383FB6D9.C53CAB1A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 00:15:47 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, November 27, 1999 5:47 AM Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation > Eric Landau wrote: > > [snip] > > Thus the underlying debate here is over whether the Law requires (or > > presumes) that for every call taken, there must be a partnership agreement > > as to its meaning. IMO it does not. > > > > IMO the footnote instructs it. > > If the explanation does not conform to the hand, the TD is > to presume mistaken explanation. > Wrong. The footnote does not say this at all. It intructs the TD to presume MI *in the absence of evidence to the contrary*. If you want to interpret this literally, then once a player says that he or his partner misbid, the footnote is no longer applicable. A player's statement is evidence. Therefore evidence of misbid exists, which is all that the footnote requires. The presumption of MI is now no longer applicable, and the TD should make a full investigation and rule according to the findings, ignoring the footnote completely. I'm not quite as literal as my statement above. My own interpretation of the footnote is that after full investigation, if the TD honestly has no idea whether he is looking at MI or misbid, he rules MI. IMO the footnote was never intended to override the TD's judgement. > I am not saying that the Law presumes that there is an > agreement, but it does instruct the TD to rule as if there > were. > The footnote instructs no such thing. IMO, you are using an overzealous interpretation of an explanatory footnote to override a player's rights under Law 40A to make any call or play that is not based on a partnership understanding. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 01:16:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:16:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA02241 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:16:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3 [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id JAA26334 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 09:16:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA13355; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 09:16:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 09:16:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199911281416.JAA13355@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25 again Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >East is dealer and Passes. >South has a 17 count and puts a Pass card on the table and then immediately >calls the TD so say that he did not mean to Pass. > >The TD takes South away from the table and learns that South was thinking >about the last board. His mind was blank as he pulled the Pass card from >the box. > >L25A or not? > >Regards, >Fearghal > Looks like L25B to me. It was neither a mispoke nor mispull, and clearly a "pause for thought". Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 08:44:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:44:42 +1100 (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 IAA03356 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:44:35 +1100 (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 KAA16045 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:44:29 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991129104450.008f86b0@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:44:50 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Law 23 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just what is a "damaging enforced pass". In particular would the following qualify? [I hasten to add the construction is entirely hypothetical] W N E S 1h 1s p 2s 2h "Director please!" North refuses to accept 2h. West now bids 3d (barring east). North bids 3s. As the suit of the withdrawn call had been specified earlier by west there are no lead penalties. East leads a diamond, and (surprise, surprise) west ruffs (2704). Obviously this is not a gambit you'd be willing to try if there were a risk that partner might raise diamonds, but under the circumstances ... M --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mon Nov 29 09:59:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:59:18 +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 JAA03537 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:59:09 +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 11sDHV-000Kkr-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:58:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 19:09:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C References: <01bf36df$f5ab14a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <19991125032727.49170.qmail@hotmail.com> <3.0.1.32.19991126111650.0071f8e8@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991126111650.0071f8e8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >I have just returned from the (ACBL) NABC in Boston. Twice, situations >arose at my table in which an opponent was in possession of UI and the TD >was called. These were TDs who are, presumably, deemed competent by the >ACBL, as they were working at the NABC. In both case, the TD's instruction >to the opponents was to ignore the UI and bid on as though no UI had been >given. Nothing was said in either case about LAs, suggested calls, or >anything else pertinent to L16. > >As it happened, there was no damage and no appeal in either case. But I >was left feeling very uneasy about the position an AC might have found >itself in. If the AC were to adjudicate the result properly based on L16, >and then explain their ruling to the OS, how would they then respond to the >aggrieved player who says "but I did exactly what the director told me to >do, so how can you now say that I did anything wrong?" > >I can only assume that the TD's statements accorded with accepted ACBL >guidelines or practice, so the issue cannot be dismissed out of hand as >mere director error; I do not believe for a minute that an AC would be >likely to have ruled either case under L82C rather than L16 (were this the >case, we would see such rulings all the time, and we don't). > >In a casual conversation later, I mentioned this to an ACBL official (not a >TD), and got the reply that players weren't expected to know L16; that law >was "for committees", which appears to be similar to Anne's position. I >agree with Roger here; this view can only cause trouble, and goes a long >way towards explaining why inexperienced players fail to grasp the >distinction between receiving an unfavorable adjustment in these situations >and being "called liars". L16 is the wrong Law. It is not expected that players should know the ins and outs of the effects of their actions in UI cases: what they need to know is the general approach, and that is spelt out in L73C. Ok, perhaps in the case of inexperienced players, the TD should go further in explaining, but reading L73C to the players would be a good start. I do not expect players generally to understand the concept and details of LAs nor think it too desirable to educate them to know 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 Nov 29 10:28:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:28:50 +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 KAA03615 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:28:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.180] (dhcp165-180.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.180]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA06842; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:28:23 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991129104450.008f86b0@chance.otago.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 18:26:39 -0500 To: Michael Albert , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Law 23 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:44 AM +1300 11/29/99, Michael Albert wrote: >Just what is a "damaging enforced pass". In particular would the following >qualify? [I hasten to add the construction is entirely hypothetical] > >W N E S >1h 1s p 2s >2h > >"Director please!" > >North refuses to accept 2h. West now bids 3d (barring east). North bids 3s. >As the suit of the withdrawn call had been specified earlier by west there >are no lead penalties. East leads a diamond, and (surprise, surprise) west >ruffs (2704). Yes, this is a damaging enforced pass; West could have known it was likely to work to his advantage, allowing him to make a no-risk psychic bid. The first example I had heard of this was the following situation. N S 1D 1H 3H 4NT 5S 5H (Director!) 5NT South could not have played 5NT without barring partner first, and the director ruled that the result would be adjusted to 6NT down one. >Obviously this is not a gambit you'd be willing to try if there were a risk >that partner might raise diamonds, but under the circumstances ... > >M > >--------------------------------------------------------- >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 Mon Nov 29 12:03:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:03:11 +1100 (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 MAA03828 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:02:57 +1100 (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 11sFDF-000JR4-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:02:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:59:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C References: <01bf386a$7ab786c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf386a$7ab786c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >RTFLB. "...standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers > that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." > >Granted a couple of GMs should realise if they have been damaged, but >how often do you hear "It's OK, he had his bid" just because it is a bid >they might have made. If you had decided that the call made was >influenced by the UI and you do not insist that the NOs accept a favourable >adjustment you are just taking the easy way out, not doing your L81C5 duty. It is not a question of taking the easy way out. I do my duty as I perceive it as a Director, and few people suggest otherwise. Do you really think that the whole teaching of directing in England and Wales is wrong in that we train Directors to instruct the table to call them back if they feel they are damaged and we do not go back otherwise? You may do it differently, Anne, but that is what the rest of us do. Before Kojak jumps on me, I do not mean in a case where you immediately know there is something you must deal with. If someone is playing an illegal system, you are going to have to deal with it, damage or no, so you must go back at the end. But the normal situation is that you get called because someone has hesitated: you tell them the UI implications, and suggest they recall you if they are unhappy in any way. Now, the rest of us do not return if not recalled: are you saying we are wrong? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 29 12:03:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:03:10 +1100 (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 MAA03829 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:02:57 +1100 (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 11sFDI-000JR1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:02:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:06:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: MI? - yes I think so References: <383EA0E8.6144ECA@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <383EA0E8.6144ECA@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Isn't it far more consistent to rule according to the >footnote: unless proof to the contrary, the TD shall rule >MI. No such footnote in my Law book. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 29 12:03:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:03:10 +1100 (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 MAA03830 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:02:57 +1100 (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 11sFDI-000JR3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:02:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:15:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Boston appeal 9 and judgement References: <19991127161616.85724.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19991127161616.85724.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > >I found it interesting the effect of procedure and judgement in the case. > >Is it curious that the finding of fact was that 2D was intended as drury >and that opener took 2D as GF, but there was no ruling as to what the actual >agreement to 2D was? Also, there was no inquiry as to the values expected >for that extraordinary 2D call. It is a UI case, not an MI one [except very briefly]. The ruling is based on use of UI so it does not matter what the actual meaning of 2D was. Granted, West's suggestion that he might have done something over an artificial 2D would need to know what 2D actually showed in the system, but once it is ruled as 6S-1, West won't be looking for more! Anyway, I shall bet you $10 to 1c that 2D was Drury: I think North knew that but had missed the pass. >I note that the double of 4C should make south certain of the location of >the CK, but opener's failure to bid 5H or 5D instead of the known 'fake' 5C >carries the inference that he does not have those cards and without one of >them 12 tricks are a dubious proposition. Why did the experts that were >consulted not mention this aspect of the bidding in their evaluation of what >was logical [alternative]? Probably because they did not understand it. Would you like to run us past this again? North has cue-bid the cheapest suit - clubs. 99% of players do not deny anything by the cheapest cue-bid. Furthermore, you refer to it as a fake cue-bid: he has the CA. Could you be confusing North and South? My only worry is why the TD did not adjust. >Text from the Saturday Boston ACBL Daily Bulletin: > >APPEALS CASE 9 >Subject (Unauthorized Information): >Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 22 Nov 99, First > Session >Bd: 15 >Dlr: South >Vul: N/S > > A Q J 7 6 > Q J 4 > A 7 2 > A 10 >9 3 2 4 >8 6 3 A 5 2 >K Q J 9 8 6 5 3 >8 4 K J 7 6 5 2 > K 10 8 5 > K 10 9 7 > 10 4 > Q 9 3 > >West North East South > Pass >Pass 1S Pass 2D (1) >Pass 2NT Pass 3S >Pass 4C Dbl Pass >Pass 4D Pass 4S >Pass 5C Pass 5 >All Pass > >(1) Intended as Drury; not Alerted > >The Facts: 5S made five, plus 650 for N/S. The Director was called before >the opening lead was faced when South disclosed that there had been a >failure to Alert. North said that he believed the 2D bid to be a >two-over-one game force. West told the Director that he thought South had >used the failure to Alert as unauthorized information and had failed to bid >the hand as if the 2D bid had been Alerted. He also stated that he might >have taken action over an artificial 2D bid. The Director ruled that there >was no violation of Law 16 and that South had not bid inappropriately. The >Director allowed the table result to stand. > >The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and West did not attend the >hearing. E/W believed that if South had bid 5H over 5C, North would have bid >6S(and gone down) because he thought 2D was natural and game-forcing. North >stated that he had not noticed South's original pass until she disclosed the >failure to Alert. He said he thought South had overbid her hand and was >trying to sign off with 5S. North said his 2NT bid showed "12 to 19, no, >12+." When asked if he would have opened 2NT with 21 HCP he replied that he >would open 1S, not 2NT. He also said that if South had bid 5H over 5C he >would have bid 6S and that a 5H bid by South would not have denied the DK. > >The Panel Decision: All three experts believed that 5H was a logical >alternative to South's 5S bid because of North's statement that his 1S bid >could have shown up to 21 HCP. Since North said he thought South had a >two-over-one forcing to game hand and he would have bid 6S had South bid 5H >, the Panel had to change the contract to 6S down one, plus 100 for E/W >(Laws 16A and 73F1). -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 29 12:03:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:03:12 +1100 (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 MAA03832 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:03:00 +1100 (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 11sFDG-000JR2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:02:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:05:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991126094309.006900d0@pop.cais.com> <383FB6D9.C53CAB1A@village.uunet.be> <001b01bf395f$a47b8ce0$dfd33ad0@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <001b01bf395f$a47b8ce0$dfd33ad0@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >Wrong. The footnote does not say this at all. It intructs the TD to >presume MI *in the absence of evidence to the contrary*. If you want to >interpret this literally, then once a player says that he or his partner >misbid, the footnote is no longer applicable. A player's statement is >evidence. Therefore evidence of misbid exists, which is all that the >footnote requires. The presumption of MI is now no longer applicable, and >the TD should make a full investigation and rule according to the findings, >ignoring the footnote completely. The interpretation generally used is best covered by using some term such as "convincing evidence". >I'm not quite as literal as my statement above. My own interpretation of the >footnote is that after full investigation, if the TD honestly has no idea >whether he is looking at MI or misbid, he rules MI. IMO the footnote was >never intended to override the TD's judgement. The judgement of the TD is used to decide what evidence is "convincing". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 29 12:16:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:16:22 +1100 (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 MAA03893 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:16:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from pc8s13a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.93.201] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11s7Ul-0004S1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:48:15 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 23 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:17:41 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3a07$886892c0$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: Sunday, November 28, 1999 10:01 PM Subject: Law 23 >Just what is a "damaging enforced pass". In particular would the following >qualify? [I hasten to add the construction is entirely hypothetical] > >W N E S >1h 1s p 2s >2h > >"Director please!" > >North refuses to accept 2h. West now bids 3d (barring east). North bids 3s. >As the suit of the withdrawn call had been specified earlier by west there >are no lead penalties. East leads a diamond, and (surprise, surprise) west >ruffs (2704). > >Obviously this is not a gambit you'd be willing to try if there were a risk >that partner might raise diamonds, but under the circumstances ... You've said it all! How can West bid Diamonds to get a D lead,in this auction, and know that his partner will not raise him? He makes an insufficient bid, and corrects it in such a way as to silence his partner. So,could he have known at the time he bid 3D and silenced his partner that it would be likely to damage his opponents? Certainly he could. Law23 applies. If opps are damaged apply 72B1. If West ends up playing in 2D not doubled (if doubled he would surely remove to hearts) or now in hearts, and the opps get a bad result I think L23 still applies but I would like others to comment on this. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 13:02:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:02:20 +1100 (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 NAA03996 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:02:01 +1100 (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 11sG8T-000G6V-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 02:01:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:54:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C In-Reply-To: <01bf3940$aeeb2740$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf3940$aeeb2740$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes snip A top is a top >>> >>NOs got 100, I'd ahave awarded 110. chs john > >But John, they were not _*damaged*_ > But if the event had been run across several sections? ... 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 13:02:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:02:10 +1100 (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 NAA03995 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:02:01 +1100 (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 11sG8S-000G6T-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 02:01:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:58:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? In-Reply-To: <004801bf3958$6edf5aa0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <004801bf3958$6edf5aa0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes snip >> >That the warning is not given to all those who violate Alert regulations. Do you >really players to call the TD every time someone has been guilty of harmless MI, >so they can get their warning?. And besides, there is no global database to >track such warnings, which makes them meaningless. I don't agree with this at all. In all the games I direct the incidence of failure to alert steadily falls, because I go to the trouble to educate the players. My primary goal is to educate rather than punish. The game goes a lot more smoothly as a result. PP(w) is very effective. cheers john > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 13:15:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:15:30 +1100 (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 NAA04069 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:15:23 +1100 (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 11sGLR-000OA5-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 02:15:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 02:13:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 23 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991129104450.008f86b0@chance.otago.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19991129104450.008f86b0@chance.otago.ac.nz>, Michael Albert writes >Just what is a "damaging enforced pass". In particular would the following >qualify? [I hasten to add the construction is entirely hypothetical] > >W N E S >1h 1s p 2s >2h > >"Director please!" > >North refuses to accept 2h. West now bids 3d (barring east). North bids 3s. >As the suit of the withdrawn call had been specified earlier by west there >are no lead penalties. East leads a diamond, and (surprise, surprise) west >ruffs (2704). > >Obviously this is not a gambit you'd be willing to try if there were a risk >that partner might raise diamonds, but under the circumstances ... > This one is considerably more villainous than the Rottweiller's effort in the EBU Junior trials which was at a much earlier stage of an auction (the thread ran to over 100 postings). I adjust. L72B1. 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 14:17:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:13:12 +1100 (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 NAA04049 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:12:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from p86s01a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.97.135] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11s8Nk-0006wM-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 17:45:05 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 02:10:15 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3a0e$e03b5080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, November 29, 1999 1:29 AM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >Anne Jones wrote: > >>RTFLB. "...standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers >> that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." >> >>Granted a couple of GMs should realise if they have been damaged, but >>how often do you hear "It's OK, he had his bid" just because it is a bid >>they might have made. If you had decided that the call made was >>influenced by the UI and you do not insist that the NOs accept a favourable >>adjustment you are just taking the easy way out, not doing your L81C5 duty. > > It is not a question of taking the easy way out. I do my duty as I >perceive it as a Director, and few people suggest otherwise. > > Do you really think that the whole teaching of directing in England >and Wales is wrong in that we train Directors to instruct the table to >call them back if they feel they are damaged and we do not go back >otherwise? > > You may do it differently, Anne, but that is what the rest of us do. I know this. It is how I was trained. My line of patter used to be" Call me back if you feel agrieved" > > Before Kojak jumps on me, I do not mean in a case where you >immediately know there is something you must deal with. If someone is >playing an illegal system, you are going to have to deal with it, damage >or no, so you must go back at the end. > > But the normal situation is that you get called because someone has >hesitated: you tell them the UI implications, and suggest they recall >you if they are unhappy in any way. Now, the rest of us do not return >if not recalled: are you saying we are wrong? Yes. I must admit that without hand-records I tend to rely on the players to claim their damage as I was trained to do. But that is not what the Law says we should do in UI cases. Now that most events have predealt boards and the TD has hand-records there is no need for such slovern. We are able to adjudge during the play of a hand whether the bid was" justified" and it is easy enough to rule as TFLB tells us to. anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 14:45:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:45:16 +1100 (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 OAA04345 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:45:08 +1100 (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 11sHkG-000M6Q-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 03:44:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 03:35:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 23 References: <3.0.1.32.19991129104450.008f86b0@chance.otago.ac.nz> 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: >This one is considerably more villainous than the Rottweiller's effort >in the EBU Junior trials which was at a much earlier stage of an auction >(the thread ran to over 100 postings). I adjust. L72B1. Rather than going on about an irrelevant case perhaps you might like to have a go at this one. TTBOATA [this one is a secret]. Why do you adjust? How does L72B1 apply? ------- Anne Jones wrote: >You've said it all! > >How can West bid Diamonds to get a D lead,in this auction, and know >that his partner will not raise him? He makes an insufficient bid, and >corrects it in such a way as to silence his partner. >So,could he have known at the time he bid 3D and silenced his partner that >it would be likely to damage his opponents? Certainly he could. Law23 >applies. 3D is not an infraction, so L23 does not apply based on what he knew at that time. ------- David Grabiner wrote: >Yes, this is a damaging enforced pass; West could have known it was likely >to work to his advantage, allowing him to make a no-risk psychic bid. Could have known when? >The first example I had heard of this was the following situation. > >N S >1D 1H >3H 4NT >5S 5H (Director!) > 5NT > >South could not have played 5NT without barring partner first, and the >director ruled that the result would be adjusted to 6NT down one. That is not a similar case. There is a clear indication that South could have known when making the 5H bid that it would work to his advantage. ------- Michael Albert wrote: >Just what is a "damaging enforced pass". In particular would the following >qualify? [I hasten to add the construction is entirely hypothetical] > >W N E S >1h 1s p 2s >2h > >"Director please!" > >North refuses to accept 2h. West now bids 3d (barring east). North bids 3s. >As the suit of the withdrawn call had been specified earlier by west there >are no lead penalties. East leads a diamond, and (surprise, surprise) west >ruffs (2704). > >Obviously this is not a gambit you'd be willing to try if there were a risk >that partner might raise diamonds, but under the circumstances ... Let us see. L23 and/or L72B1 lets us adjust if a player knows an infraction might work to his benefit at the time of the infraction. That is when the player bid 2H, not when he bid 3D. Of course he knows 3D could work to his benefit at the time he bids it, but read L72A5. So do you really think that West would be willing to bid 2H to get a diamond lead? Knowing that by following this machiavellian plan he might miss 4H? It is whether he could have known at the time of the 2H bid that is relevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 29 16:22:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:22:15 +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 QAA04585 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:21:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.106]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:21:26 -0800 Message-ID: <01b801bf3a29$9e3978e0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "John Probst" , References: Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:14:10 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John, Your approach seems okay for a club environment, although I would suggest that you make an announcement about Alerts before the game starts. Then a global PP(w) will have been issued to everyone, instead of to some players piecemeal. The big-tournament environment, in which TDs don't know most of the players, and wouldn't know if yesterday a player was warned, seems to make a pre-announced PP(w) indispensable. Also, copies of the Alert regulations should be reproduced and made available to players. At our unit games, we have a bunch of my ACBL Alert digests available alongside the stack of convention cards. Players have no excuse for being unfamiliar with the Alert rules. However, our TD handles MI (which includes Alert errors) according to the Laws (not including L90) if there is damage, and with a lecture with or without damage. If a player were to disregard such a lecture (hasn't happened yet) s/he would become the subject of disciplinary action outside the game (despite L90B8, which could be stretched to cover such cases). I did some research on PPs, going back to 1935, when they were called Disciplinary Penalties. Somewhere along the line it was recognized that the Laws do not aim at punishing irregularities, but at redressing damage, and DPs were renamed PPs to emphasize this fact. It is odd that for 60 years no one ever considered (to my knowledge) using DPs/PPs for MI/UI cases, and all of a sudden this becomes correct in the 90s. How come no one every thought of it before? Why not add this possiblity to L90B, to make it clear? And why pick on MI/UI irregularities? Can't all irregularities be subject to a PP by the same logic? Marv (Marvin L. French) > In article <004801bf3958$6edf5aa0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. > French" writes > > snip > >> > >That the warning is not given to all those who violate Alert regulations. Do you > >really players to call the TD every time someone has been guilty of harmless MI, > >so they can get their warning?. And besides, there is no global database to > >track such warnings, which makes them meaningless. > > I don't agree with this at all. In all the games I direct the incidence > of failure to alert steadily falls, because I go to the trouble to > educate the players. My primary goal is to educate rather than punish. > The game goes a lot more smoothly as a result. PP(w) is very effective. > > cheers john > > > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > > > > > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 16:41:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:41:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04628 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:41:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn44p33.ozemail.com.au [210.84.1.161]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA09189 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:41:21 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991129164354.007d2ea0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:43:54 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991129104450.008f86b0@chance.otago.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > So do you really think that West would be willing to bid 2H to get a >diamond lead? Knowing that by following this machiavellian plan he >might miss 4H? It is whether he could have known at the time of the 2H >bid that is relevant. > I didn't think it was required that one examine the offender's motives when applying L72B. His subsequent actions showed that it was conceivable at the time the infraction occurred that the non-offenders might be damaged. That's enough for me. Cheers, Tony >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 29 20:41:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:41:39 +1100 (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 UAA05008 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:41:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.12.35] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11sNJC-0002Xe-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:41:23 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01bf3a4d$662d4980$230c063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <01bf386a$7ab786c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:37:47 -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 Jones wrote: > > >RTFLB. "...standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers > > that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." > > > >Granted a couple of GMs should realise if they have been damaged, but > >how often do you hear "It's OK, he had his bid" just because it is a bid > >they might have made. If you had decided that the call made was > >influenced by the UI and you do not insist that the NOs accept a favourable > >adjustment you are just taking the easy way out, not doing your L81C5 duty. I may have missed something here, but is this a suggestion that when a Grandmaster considers that there is no damage, a TD should say in effect: "You're wrong - there was!" and adjust the score? This seems very odd to me. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 20:59:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:59:42 +1100 (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 UAA05052 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:59:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:59:09 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA24943 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:44:32 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: L25 again Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:39:43 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle >East is dealer and Passes. >South has a 17 count and puts a Pass card on the table and then immediately >calls the TD so say that he did not mean to Pass. > >The TD takes South away from the table and learns that South was thinking >about the last board. His mind was blank as he pulled the Pass card from >the box. > >L25A or not? > >Regards, >Fearghal South had clearly fallen asleep. That is not forbidden, but also no reason for a free correction. Hence 25B. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 22:25:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:25:55 +1100 (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 WAA05397 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:25:46 +1100 (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 LAA19115 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:25:35 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA15976 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:25:34 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:25:34 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 LAA02649 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:25:33 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA03586 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:25:32 GMT Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:25:32 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199911291125.LAA03586@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: EBU Logical alternatives X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This problem came up yesterday at the Tollemache qualifier (EBU cross-imped team of eight competition for counties). West holds Jxxx, -, AKxxxx, KQx. W N E S 1D X 1NT 4H 1NT showed a balanced hand, no 5 card M 4S X P P East's pass was slow 5D X end. The TD who was called consulted a number of colleagues: none would have bid 4S, but they all bid 5D. The EBU interpretation of logical alternative is that a significant percentage (20-30%) of the players peers would take the action. So the TD ruled that pass was not a logical alternative to 5D: score stands. It was not my ruling but I was consulted. The non-offenders felt the ruling was wrong and would have appealed had they not qualified (on a split tie for second place) with the score from 5DX. Apologies to the non-offending side (my alma mater) if I have got any details wrong. The main objections to this ruling are: (1) Interpretations not withstanding, if you make a bid to play and partner leaves it in then playing in that contract is surely a logical alternative. (2) It is not clear that the TDs consulted are peers (in terms of ability) of the players in the event. (3) The TDs consulted were not peers of a player who would bid 4S. I (still) think the TD was right to rule for the (potentially) offending side, even though the objections above mean he can see that he might be overturned on appeal. What does anyone else think. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 23:02:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:44:14 +1100 (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 WAA05506 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:44:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA17227 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:43:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JIWRPCREBG00071P@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:37:07 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:37:05 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:36:29 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: 25B twice To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A9@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 We had our semi-finals teams for the Dutch championships this weekend. I was TD there and the following happened: East opened 2 diamonds (multi) and partner answered 2 spades. The tray came back and east now bid 3 diamonds. North asked about the meaning and now east discovered the 2 spade bid where he thought his partner had bid 2 NT. I was called and both (north and east) wanted to talk to me away from the table. Then they told me what had happened. In accordance with what I think 25B means I allowed east to change his call in pass, telling him that the score on the board couldn't become more than average-minus. He decided to pass. I informed the other side that the maximum score for east-west would be average-minus and that NS would keep their actual score. East made 2 spades and at the other table 2 spades went one off. So for the first time in my thirty years TD-life in the Netherlands I had to apply law 86b, resulting in half an imp for the east-west team. The team of EW won the semi-finals with 9.5 imps. Without north's question 3 diamonds would have gone through, showing a semi-forcing in that suit and west with a good hand might have tried for slam. Another winner!? I prefer normal bridge results above ridiculous ones, so I was happy to be able to apply 25B. But the feeling that they needed the assistence of their opponents to get a normal result is strange. A week before, somewhere else and not involved myself, the auction went 1NT - 2 clubs - 2NT - pass (uncontested auction). !NT 15-17 , the pass-hand had 11 points and called the TD at once, telling he wanted to change his call. The TD didn't allow him (not in accordance with the instructions we have). Declarer made 10 tricks and they appealed the decision, telling they would have chosen to play in 3 NT for at most average-minus. It appeared that the other table played in 3 NT and the contract went one off. So the appealing side won 7 imp's on the board (vulnerable). So what score should be given? 7, - 7 (ignoring the appeal, since they were not damaged), 3, 3 (according to some people the result of applying 82C), -3, -7 ( the result had the TD the player allowed to bid 3NT) or something even more brilliant? A short reaction on the inadvertent pass with 15-17. Reading 25A there seems no possibility of changing this call. Still I feel that the wording should allow such a change. Don't worry, no such instructions given to 'my' TD's (yet). ton From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 29 23:58:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:42:32 +1100 (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 WAA05495 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:42:23 +1100 (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 11sPC7-000JGZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:42:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 03:53:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C References: <01bf3a0e$e03b5080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf3a0e$e03b5080$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: >>>RTFLB. "...standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers >>> that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." >>> >>>Granted a couple of GMs should realise if they have been damaged, but >>>how often do you hear "It's OK, he had his bid" just because it is a bid >>>they might have made. If you had decided that the call made was >>>influenced by the UI and you do not insist that the NOs accept a >favourable >>>adjustment you are just taking the easy way out, not doing your L81C5 >duty. >> It is not a question of taking the easy way out. I do my duty as I >>perceive it as a Director, and few people suggest otherwise. >> >> Do you really think that the whole teaching of directing in England >>and Wales is wrong in that we train Directors to instruct the table to >>call them back if they feel they are damaged and we do not go back >>otherwise? >> >> You may do it differently, Anne, but that is what the rest of us do. >I know this. It is how I was trained. My line of patter used to be" Call >me back if you feel agrieved" >> Before Kojak jumps on me, I do not mean in a case where you >>immediately know there is something you must deal with. If someone is >>playing an illegal system, you are going to have to deal with it, damage >>or no, so you must go back at the end. >> >> But the normal situation is that you get called because someone has >>hesitated: you tell them the UI implications, and suggest they recall >>you if they are unhappy in any way. Now, the rest of us do not return >>if not recalled: are you saying we are wrong? >Yes. > I must admit that without hand-records I tend to rely on the >players to claim their damage as I was trained to do. But that is not > what the Law says we should do in UI cases. Now that most events >have predealt boards and the TD has hand-records there is no need > for such slovern. We are able to adjudge during the play of a hand >whether the bid was" justified" and it is easy enough to rule as TFLB > tells us to. Ok, well I am afraid that what you are doing is a disservice to the game. I realise that where something needs to be done we have to do it, but I do not believe that we should be pro-active in these sort of matters. It is not what the players would want in my view - and they are the customers. I believe that we were taught the best way to direct, not the only way because there were no hand records. Furthermore, how you can possibly assume you can rule without all the evidence? When you establish that there was UI of some sort it is not normal to find everything out that you need to know - it would give away huge amounts of UI. Therefore, if you are going to follow this pro- active approach, you are either going to rule without the evidence or you are going to return to the table and get the evidence even when the players do not want a ruling any more. If the latter, then the hand records bit is a red herring: you might just as well always return at the end of a hand, look at the hand, and get the rest of the evidence. This possibility is unchanged by having hand records. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 30 00:26:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:26:23 +1100 (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 AAA05979 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:26:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-030.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.222]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA70194 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:25:35 GMT Message-ID: <006e01bf3a75$fae72460$de307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Law 23 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:28:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 3D wasn't the infraction so L72B1 doesn't seem the right way to go. If offender had known when he bid the insufficient 2H that it might damage the opponents then we would use L72B1. Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 00:44:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:44:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe51.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA06092 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:44:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 38977 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Nov 1999 13:43:34 -0000 Message-ID: <19991129134334.38976.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.163.204] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <19991127161616.85724.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Boston appeal 9 and judgement Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 02:10:29 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ok, ok. Opener cue bids 4C suggesting the ace. It is doubled, suggesting the king [responder is looking at the Q]. Responder had the chance to cue over the double and has declined. Over 4D he calls 4S. At this point opener has the opportunity to cue a real diamond K or a real heart ace. Instead he cues a second round control, supposedly the stiff club ace. If opener had either of the red cards, it is better to bid them to give partner a better visualization to count the holes he plugs. So, why go to the trouble of cue bidding further? Because not bidding another red control and instead a distributional control strongly suggests neither red one is present. From responder's point of view, missing the heart ace and diamond king makes a poor slam proposition. Also, considering the 2N strongly proposes that the club ace is not singleton [otherwise would he not have rebid a new suit?????] I think that responder has the information to settle the contracting and it is imperative that he issue his opinion by bidding 5S- while bidding 5H will only profit opposite a sadistic partner who also has an undisclosed red control. After all, imo, it is responder that was either inspired or sadistic by the vehicle of 2D. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Sunday, November 28, 1999 6:15 PM Subject: Re: Boston appeal 9 and judgement > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > > >I found it interesting the effect of procedure and judgement in the case. > > > >Is it curious that the finding of fact was that 2D was intended as drury > >and that opener took 2D as GF, but there was no ruling as to what the actual > >agreement to 2D was? Also, there was no inquiry as to the values expected > >for that extraordinary 2D call. > > It is a UI case, not an MI one [except very briefly]. The ruling is > based on use of UI so it does not matter what the actual meaning of 2D > was. > > Granted, West's suggestion that he might have done something over an > artificial 2D would need to know what 2D actually showed in the system, > but once it is ruled as 6S-1, West won't be looking for more! > > Anyway, I shall bet you $10 to 1c that 2D was Drury: I think North > knew that but had missed the pass. My point was that the listing of the facts suggested that there was some belief that it might be some other agreement. Yet, the procedure followed did not resolve it. > >I note that the double of 4C should make south certain of the location of > >the CK, but opener's failure to bid 5H or 5D instead of the known 'fake' 5C > >carries the inference that he does not have those cards and without one of > >them 12 tricks are a dubious proposition. Why did the experts that were > >consulted not mention this aspect of the bidding in their evaluation of what > >was logical [alternative]? > > Probably because they did not understand it. Would you like to run us > past this again? North has cue-bid the cheapest suit - clubs. 99% of > players do not deny anything by the cheapest cue-bid. Furthermore, you > refer to it as a fake cue-bid: he has the CA. > > Could you be confusing North and South? > > My only worry is why the TD did not adjust. > > >Text from the Saturday Boston ACBL Daily Bulletin: > > > >APPEALS CASE 9 > >Subject (Unauthorized Information): > >Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 22 Nov 99, First > > Session > >Bd: 15 > >Dlr: South > >Vul: N/S > > > > A Q J 7 6 > > Q J 4 > > A 7 2 > > A 10 > >9 3 2 4 > >8 6 3 A 5 2 > >K Q J 9 8 6 5 3 > >8 4 K J 7 6 5 2 > > K 10 8 5 > > K 10 9 7 > > 10 4 > > Q 9 3 > > > >West North East South > > Pass > >Pass 1S Pass 2D (1) > >Pass 2NT Pass 3S > >Pass 4C Dbl Pass > >Pass 4D Pass 4S > >Pass 5C Pass 5 > >All Pass > > > >(1) Intended as Drury; not Alerted > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK 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 Nov 30 00:50:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:40:28 +1100 (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 AAA06050 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:40:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-144.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.144]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06063 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:39:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38426523.36F58481@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:36:03 +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: MI? - yes I think so References: <383EA0E8.6144ECA@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Isn't it far more consistent to rule according to the > >footnote: unless proof to the contrary, the TD shall rule > >MI. > > No such footnote in my Law book. > Are you being literal, David, or do you honostly have another version of the Lawbook than I have? (yes I know you have, I have an American one) Footnote to L75D2 - example 2 The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I know it's only a comment between brackets, within an example, added to a footnote, appended to a bridge Law, but are you suggesting it is not part of TFLB ? Please don't forget where this all started. A player explains his partner's call in a different manner to what he holds, and then tells his opponents and the Tournament Director, "we are not certain about our agreements, it may well be that we have no agreement at all". And now the Director is not empowered to rule misinformation ? Please ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 01:38:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 01:38:57 +1100 (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 BAA06246 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 01:38:48 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA29674 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:38:10 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:38 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Law 23 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991129104450.008f86b0@chance.otago.ac.nz> Michael albert wrote: > > Just what is a "damaging enforced pass". In particular would the > following > qualify? [I hasten to add the construction is entirely hypothetical] > > W N E S > 1h 1s p 2s > 2h > > "Director please!" > > North refuses to accept 2h. West now bids 3d (barring east). North bids > 3s. > As the suit of the withdrawn call had been specified earlier by west > there > are no lead penalties. East leads a diamond, and (surprise, surprise) > west > ruffs (2704). > > Obviously this is not a gambit you'd be willing to try if there were a > risk > that partner might raise diamonds, but under the circumstances ... > I would interpret the "could have known" test as. At the time he bid 2H is it moderately likely that West would expect a better result from barring partner and asking for a diamond lead rather than making a sufficient descriptive bid. I suspect the answer to my question would be no but I have insufficient facts to be sure. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 01:52:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:40:42 +1100 (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 AAA06074 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:40:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-144.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.144]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06090 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:40:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38426711.918CF6A1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:44:17 +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: Law 23 References: <3.0.1.32.19991129104450.008f86b0@chance.otago.ac.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >North refuses to accept 2h. West now bids 3d (barring east). North bids 3s. > >As the suit of the withdrawn call had been specified earlier by west there > >are no lead penalties. East leads a diamond, and (surprise, surprise) west > >ruffs (2704). > > > >Obviously this is not a gambit you'd be willing to try if there were a risk > >that partner might raise diamonds, but under the circumstances ... > > Let us see. L23 and/or L72B1 lets us adjust if a player knows an > infraction might work to his benefit at the time of the infraction. > That is when the player bid 2H, not when he bid 3D. Of course he knows > 3D could work to his benefit at the time he bids it, but read L72A5. > > So do you really think that West would be willing to bid 2H to get a > diamond lead? Knowing that by following this machiavellian plan he > might miss 4H? It is whether he could have known at the time of the 2H > bid that is relevant. > Exactly. If he bids 2H by mistake, then gets the Laws read (by a very competent Director who explains there are no lead penalties) and now finds the brilliant ploy of bidding a suit he does not have, OK. But if he underbids 2H knowingly to reach the above situation, that is L23. Mind you, any indication that this might be the case and I adjust. But I should really investigate. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 02:39:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:40:27 +1100 (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 AAA06048 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:40:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-144.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.144]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06015 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:39:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3840FF24.FE6E82F0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 11:08:36 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991126094309.006900d0@pop.cais.com> <383FB6D9.C53CAB1A@village.uunet.be> <001b01bf395f$a47b8ce0$dfd33ad0@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > If the explanation does not conform to the hand, the TD is > > to presume mistaken explanation. > > > > Wrong. The footnote does not say this at all. It intructs the TD to > presume MI *in the absence of evidence to the contrary*. If you want to > interpret this literally, then once a player says that he or his partner > misbid, the footnote is no longer applicable. A player's statement is > evidence. Therefore evidence of misbid exists, which is all that the > footnote requires. The presumption of MI is now no longer applicable, and > the TD should make a full investigation and rule according to the findings, > ignoring the footnote completely. > > I'm not quite as literal as my statement above. My own interpretation of the > footnote is that after full investigation, if the TD honestly has no idea > whether he is looking at MI or misbid, he rules MI. IMO the footnote was > never intended to override the TD's judgement. > > > I am not saying that the Law presumes that there is an > > agreement, but it does instruct the TD to rule as if there > > were. > > > > The footnote instructs no such thing. IMO, you are using an overzealous > interpretation of an explanatory footnote to override a player's rights > under Law 40A to make any call or play that is not based on a partnership > understanding. > > > Hirsch OK Hirsh, now we are really back again where we started from : "standard of proof for misbid". Perhaps we should start a thread with that subject. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 02:50:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:40:29 +1100 (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 AAA06049 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:40:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-144.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.144]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06035 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:39:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38426371.5BEA3A06@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:28:49 +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: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991126094309.006900d0@pop.cais.com> <383FB6D9.C53CAB1A@village.uunet.be> <001b01bf395f$a47b8ce0$dfd33ad0@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Showing superb timing, David Stevenson wrote: > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >Wrong. The footnote does not say this at all. It intructs the TD to > >presume MI *in the absence of evidence to the contrary*. If you want to > >interpret this literally, then once a player says that he or his partner > >misbid, the footnote is no longer applicable. A player's statement is > >evidence. Therefore evidence of misbid exists, which is all that the > >footnote requires. The presumption of MI is now no longer applicable, and > >the TD should make a full investigation and rule according to the findings, > >ignoring the footnote completely. > > The interpretation generally used is best covered by using some term > such as "convincing evidence". > > >I'm not quite as literal as my statement above. My own interpretation of the > >footnote is that after full investigation, if the TD honestly has no idea > >whether he is looking at MI or misbid, he rules MI. IMO the footnote was > >never intended to override the TD's judgement. > > The judgement of the TD is used to decide what evidence is > "convincing". > I had a case like that yesterday. As a player ! I am playing in a charity tournament, with a partner who is the regular substitute in my competition team. He has recently received a copy of the system I play with my regular partner, but has not yet mastered it completely. When I notice who our next opponents are, a pair known to play strong club, I remind my partner of our defence to that system. So first board, my LHO opens one club, and partner doubles. I alert, RHO asks, and I say "clubs". He bids 1Di, alerted, I don't ask (it shows 0-6 without 3 clubs), and I double, intending to show my AK of diamonds. LHO bids 1Sp and plays there, two down. During play, it turns out that partner holds 4-4 in the majors and thought he could show that with a double (he should have bid 2Di for that). My explanation is correct, but of course by the nature of the tournament, we have no way of proving this on paper. Yet the TD ruled that he considered it "convincing evidence", and he allowed the result to stand. He gave us a PP of 10%, which I did not appeal, although I did not agree with it. I agree with the ruling though. Please do not forget that all the examples I gave on the dWs are about cases where the players are in doubt about what their system is. In this case there was no doubt, just no written proof. In some cases the TD is allowed to judge that even without written proof there is convincing evidence. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 03:33:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 03:33:34 +1100 (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 DAA06765 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 03:33:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ga362966 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:32:45 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-97-19.tmns.net.au ([139.134.97.19]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Trusting-MailRouter V2.6d 9/216708); 30 Nov 1999 02:32:44 Message-ID: <026f01bf3a87$36b523a0$1ede868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Boston appeal 9 and judgement Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 03:09:23 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Roger Pewick wrote: (hand is at the bottom) >I found it interesting the effect of procedure and judgement in the case. > >there was no inquiry as to the values expected for that extraordinary >2D call. I agree; this is strange. For the uninitiated, in the more complex version of "Drury", 2C shows a maximum pass with three trumps, and 2D shows a maximum pass with four trumps. So South appears to be subminimum, a highly relevant fact. Or does 2D systemically show 8-11 points by this pair? One would hope to see this information in the summary of the appeal. >I note that the double of 4C should make south certain of the location of >the CK, but opener's failure to bid 5H or 5D instead of the known 'fake' 5C >carries the inference that he does not have those cards and without one of >them 12 tricks are a dubious proposition. Why did the experts that were >consulted not mention this aspect of the bidding in their evaluation of what >was logical [alternative]? You seem to infer that 5C is a fake cue because East is marked with CK for his double. However East is on lead to both 6S and 6NT, so his double at the favourable vulnerability should technically be a suggestion of a possible 7C save over 6S, with no suggestion of CK. So North could have CAK after all. This may be the reason you are searching for. Presumably North didn't bid 6S because HAK was missing on the bidding. Had North had 21 HCP opposite partner's 13+ (an aceless 12 count would surely be a 1NT response), HAK can't be missing. And even if we give North a suitable 21HCP hand, such as AQJxx, xx, Axx, AKx, 6S is less than 50% due to the not impossible club ruff at trick one. Yes, as you suggest, the analysis does seem a bit uncertain. However, I observe that none of us have suggested that we disagree with the ruling. North's truthfulness about the 21HCP suggests he is no Oliver North. :) Peter Gill Australia. >Text from the Saturday Boston ACBL Daily Bulletin: > >APPEALS CASE 9 >Subject (Unauthorized Information): >Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 22 Nov 99, First > Session >Bd: 15 >Dlr: South >Vul: N/S > > A Q J 7 6 > Q J 4 > A 7 2 > A 10 >9 3 2 4 >8 6 3 A 5 2 >K Q J 9 8 6 5 3 >8 4 K J 7 6 5 2 > K 10 8 5 > K 10 9 7 > 10 4 > Q 9 3 > >West North East South > Pass >Pass 1S Pass 2D (1) >Pass 2NT Pass 3S >Pass 4C Dbl Pass >Pass 4D Pass 4S >Pass 5C Pass 5 >All Pass > >(1) Intended as Drury; not Alerted > >The Facts: 5S made five, plus 650 for N/S. The Director was called before >the opening lead was faced when South disclosed that there had been a >failure to Alert. North said that he believed the 2D bid to be a >two-over-one game force. West told the Director that he thought South had >used the failure to Alert as unauthorized information and had failed to bid >the hand as if the 2D bid had been Alerted. He also stated that he might >have taken action over an artificial 2D bid. The Director ruled that there >was no violation of Law 16 and that South had not bid inappropriately. The >Director allowed the table result to stand. > >The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and West did not attend the >hearing. E/W believed that if South had bid 5H over 5C, North would have bid >6S(and gone down) because he thought 2D was natural and game-forcing. North >stated that he had not noticed South's original pass until she disclosed the >failure to Alert. He said he thought South had overbid her hand and was >trying to sign off with 5S. North said his 2NT bid showed "12 to 19, no, >12+." When asked if he would have opened 2NT with 21 HCP he replied that he >would open 1S, not 2NT. He also said that if South had bid 5H over 5C he >would have bid 6S and that a 5H bid by South would not have denied the DK. > >The Panel Decision: All three experts believed that 5H was a logical >alternative to South's 5S bid because of North's statement that his 1S bid >could have shown up to 21 HCP. Since North said he thought South had a >two-over-one forcing to game hand and he would have bid 6S had South bid 5H >, the Panel had to change the contract to 6S down one, plus 100 for E/W >(Laws 16A and 73F1). > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 03:47:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 03:47:53 +1100 (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 DAA06797 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 03:47:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA02852 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:47:07 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:47 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives 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: <199911291125.LAA03586@tempest.npl.co.uk> Robin Barker wrote: > The main objections to this ruling are: > (1) Interpretations not withstanding, if you make a bid to play > and partner leaves it in then playing in that contract is > surely a logical alternative. Personally I will, with reasonable frequency, make bids "to play if opponents can't/won't double (and to pull if they do)". The 4S bid here is exactly that sort of situation (particularly if I am nv vs v). Assuming I choose to sacrifice over 4H (reasonable on the hand) and expect 5Dx to cost 300 then going 4S-5 will be a better score. The 4S bid may also mislead opponents as to the correct action over a subsequent 5D. Since I would also bid 4S on KQT9x,x,AKxxxx,x (and pass the double) I can hardly expect partner to have a clue what to do over 4S. I'd want to question the player concerned before making a ruling. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 03:57:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 03:57:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06829 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 03:56:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (dial49.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.49]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA28166; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:56:36 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19991129134334.38976.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <19991127161616.85724.qmail@hotmail.com> <19991129134334.38976.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:57:04 -0500 To: "Roger Pewick" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Boston appeal 9 and judgement Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'll point out before DWS does the importance of the director's at the table fact-finding here. Had the director asked South for his reasoning at the table (surely he should have) and had South explained that he considered the factors you mention, in light of his partnership's cuebidding style, before signing off in 5S, then I'd consider this line of reasoning. On the facts as presented I have no basis to believe that South considered anything other than how to escape the mess created by partner's "obviously" forgetting Drury. Is there any evidence that South was aware that he had unauthorized information, and of his obligations for proceeding when he does? When he informed the opponents of the failure to alert I expect he was concerned that his side had given misinformation (which they had.) Adam Wildavsky At 2:10 AM -0600 11/29/99, Roger Pewick wrote: >Ok, ok. > >Opener cue bids 4C suggesting the ace. It is doubled, suggesting the king >[responder is looking at the Q]. Responder had the chance to cue over the >double and has declined. Over 4D he calls 4S. At this point opener has the >opportunity to cue a real diamond K or a real heart ace. Instead he cues a >second round control, supposedly the stiff club ace. If opener had either >of the red cards, it is better to bid them to give partner a better >visualization to count the holes he plugs. So, why go to the trouble of cue >bidding further? Because not bidding another red control and instead a >distributional control strongly suggests neither red one is present. From >responder's point of view, missing the heart ace and diamond king makes a >poor slam proposition. Also, considering the 2N strongly proposes that the >club ace is not singleton [otherwise would he not have rebid a new >suit?????] I think that responder has the information to settle the >contracting and it is imperative that he issue his opinion by bidding 5S- >while bidding 5H will only profit opposite a sadistic partner who also has >an undisclosed red control. After all, imo, it is responder that was >either inspired or sadistic by the vehicle of 2D. > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 04:10:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:10:18 +1100 (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 EAA06891 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:10:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from p90s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.145] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11s2dj-00005j-00; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 11:37:11 +0000 Message-ID: <004501bf3a8c$50f30700$91a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:07:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 29 November 1999 11:40 Subject: EBU Logical alternatives >This problem came up yesterday at the Tollemache qualifier >(EBU cross-imped team of eight competition for counties). > >West holds Jxxx, -, AKxxxx, KQx. > >W N E S >1D X 1NT 4H 1NT showed a balanced hand, no 5 card M >4S X P P East's pass was slow >5D X end. > > >The main objections to this ruling are: >(1) Interpretations not withstanding, if you make a bid to play > and partner leaves it in then playing in that contract is > surely a logical alternative. >(2) It is not clear that the TDs consulted are peers (in terms of > ability) of the players in the event. >(3) The TDs consulted were not peers of a player who would bid 4S. > +=+ In the above the statement in (2) begs a serious question. What opinion were they asked to give? When the Director consults he is not asking what the person consulted would do as a player. He is asking for help in judging what the peers of the player in question would do. I am fascinated with the problem of what is a logical alternative for a player whose first rebid, freely made and unaffected by UI, is "wild and gambling", and gets doubled. (Of course, the slow pass eases his choice, but the auction possibly suggests with East three Spades and not as many as four Diamonds..) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 04:11:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:11:24 +1100 (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 EAA06909 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:11:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from p90s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.145] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11s2dg-00005j-00; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 11:37:09 +0000 Message-ID: <004401bf3a8c$4fbd4620$91a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , Subject: Re: 25B twice Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:38:19 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Date: 29 November 1999 12:25 Subject: 25B twice > >We had our semi-finals teams for the Dutch championships this weekend. I was >TD there and the following happened: ................. \x/ ............... > >. So for the first time in my >thirty years TD-life in the Netherlands I had to apply law 86b, resulting in >half an imp for the east-west team. >The team of EW won the semi-finals with 9.5 imps. Without north's question 3 >diamonds would have gone through, showing a semi-forcing in that suit and >west with a good hand might have tried for slam. Another winner!? >I prefer normal bridge results above ridiculous ones, so I was happy to be >able to apply 25B. But the feeling that they needed the assistence of their >opponents to get a normal result is strange. > >A week before, somewhere else and not involved myself, the auction went 1NT >- 2 clubs - 2NT - pass (uncontested auction). !NT 15-17 , the pass-hand had >11 points and called the TD at once, telling he wanted to change his call. >The TD didn't allow him (not in accordance with the instructions we have). >Declarer made 10 tricks and they appealed the decision, telling they would >have chosen to play in 3 NT for at most average-minus. It appeared that the >other table played in 3 NT and the contract went one off. So the appealing >side won 7 imp's on the board (vulnerable). So what score should be given? >7, - 7 (ignoring the appeal, since they were not damaged), 3, 3 (according >to some people the result of applying 82C), -3, -7 ( the result had the TD >the player allowed to bid 3NT) or something even more brilliant? > > >A short reaction on the inadvertent pass with 15-17. Reading 25A there seems >no possibility of changing this call. Still I feel that the wording should >allow such a change. Don't worry, no such instructions given to 'my' TD's >(yet). > +=+ I think everyone is convinced that, whatever else, we ought to take an axe to Law 25; then decide what we really want and write a fresh law which says just what we agree we want and leaves no scope for misunderstanding ... yeah :-))) I have no problem with writing a law which allows escape from the mental aberration when in full awareness of the situation; I do have a problem with any change of judgement what to do, and a problem when the player wants to recover after acting without proper attention to what the situation is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 04:17:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:17:03 +1100 (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 EAA06987 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:16:54 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA23610 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:16:45 +0100 Received: from ip60.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.60), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda23608; Mon Nov 29 18:16:36 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:16:36 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991126094309.006900d0@pop.cais.com> <383FB6D9.C53CAB1A@village.uunet.be> <001b01bf395f$a47b8ce0$dfd33ad0@hdavis> <38426371.5BEA3A06@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38426371.5BEA3A06@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 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 EAA06988 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:28:49 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >So first board, my LHO opens one club, and partner doubles. >I alert, RHO asks, and I say "clubs". He bids 1Di, alerted, >I don't ask (it shows 0-6 without 3 clubs), and I double, >intending to show my AK of diamonds. LHO bids 1Sp and plays >there, two down. > >During play, it turns out that partner holds 4-4 in the >majors and thought he could show that with a double (he >should have bid 2Di for that). > >My explanation is correct, but of course by the nature of >the tournament, we have no way of proving this on paper. > >Yet the TD ruled that he considered it "convincing >evidence", and he allowed the result to stand. He gave us a >PP of 10%, which I did not appeal, although I did not agree >with it. Did he say what irregularity the PP was for? He seems to have ruled that you committed no irregularity and then penalized you nevertheless. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 04:39:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:39:47 +1100 (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 EAA07047 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:39:38 +1100 (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 RAA04933 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:38:01 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA29752 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:38:00 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:38:00 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 RAA07987 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:37:59 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA03750 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:37:58 GMT Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:37:58 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199911291737.RAA03750@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives > > Personally I will, with reasonable frequency, make bids "to play if > opponents can't/won't double (and to pull if they do)". The 4S bid here > is exactly that sort of situation (particularly if I am nv vs v). > > Assuming I choose to sacrifice over 4H (reasonable on the hand) and expect > 5Dx to cost 300 then going 4S-5 will be a better score. The 4S bid may > also mislead opponents as to the correct action over a subsequent 5D. > > Since I would also bid 4S on KQT9x,x,AKxxxx,x (and pass the double) I can > hardly expect partner to have a clue what to do over 4S. > > I'd want to question the player concerned before making a ruling. The player was questioned and said much as Tim says above: in particular, when he bid 4S he had no intention of playing 4SX. Self serving (as in after-the-fact justification) or not, I think the TD believed this statement from West --- if only because it goes some way to explain the 4S bid. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 04:50:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:12:57 +1100 (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 EAA06935 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:12:48 +1100 (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 11sULo-000AqF-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:12:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:11:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Wiesbaden MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm off to play the ACBL Regionals in Wiesbaden. I hope to be adding to my lifetime total of 100 ACBL points (60 of which are gold). The CTD is a young whippersnapper called Kojak, so we should have some stories to tell when we get back. Enjoy youselves. cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 05:01:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:01:50 +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 FAA07126 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:01:41 +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 NAA23918 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:01:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA16568 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:01:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:01:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911291801.NAA16568@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > It seems to me that when a TD is called to > a table because someone has UI, he should explain to the the recipient his > responsibility under Law 16. I agree with Anne, and I'm pretty sure Eric agrees with Anne. Eric's point -- accurate in my experience -- is that no L16 explanation is given by ACBL TD's. (Neither the Vancouver nor Chicago casebooks were available in Boston. According to the person at the table, none was shipped!) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 05:50:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:52:30 +1100 (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 EAA07091 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:52:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from pbas01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.187] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11s6E8-0004AO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:27:00 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:41:22 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3a90$f379a340$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: Monday, November 29, 1999 9:56 AM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> >RTFLB. "...standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he >considers >> > that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." >> > >> >Granted a couple of GMs should realise if they have been damaged, >but >> >how often do you hear "It's OK, he had his bid" just because it is >a bid >> >they might have made. If you had decided that the call made was >> >influenced by the UI and you do not insist that the NOs accept a >favourable >> >adjustment you are just taking the easy way out, not doing your >L81C5 duty. > >I may have missed something here, Yes. > but is this a suggestion that when a >Grandmaster considers that there is no damage, a TD should say in >effect: "You're wrong - there was!" No. that's not what I said. >and adjust the score? This seems >very odd to me. What I said was, I am called to the table because someone is in receipt of UI. I instruct that the boards be played. I return and I am told there is no damage. Fine. I accept that. If I return and I am told, It's OK, he had his bid. I investigate and decide myself, and adjust if I find necessary. That is what L16A2 tells me I should do. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 06:05:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:12:57 +1100 (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 EAA06934 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:12:46 +1100 (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 11sULo-000CjG-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:12:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:08:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives In-Reply-To: <199911291125.LAA03586@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199911291125.LAA03586@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >This problem came up yesterday at the Tollemache qualifier >(EBU cross-imped team of eight competition for counties). > >West holds Jxxx, -, AKxxxx, KQx. > >W N E S >1D X 1NT 4H 1NT showed a balanced hand, no 5 card M >4S X P P East's pass was slow >5D X end. > >The TD who was called consulted a number of colleagues: none >would have bid 4S, but they all bid 5D. The EBU interpretation >of logical alternative is that a significant percentage (20-30%) >of the players peers would take the action. So the TD ruled >that pass was not a logical alternative to 5D: score stands. > >It was not my ruling but I was consulted. The non-offenders >felt the ruling was wrong and would have appealed had they not >qualified (on a split tie for second place) with the score >from 5DX. Apologies to the non-offending side (my alma mater) >if I have got any details wrong. > >The main objections to this ruling are: >(1) Interpretations not withstanding, if you make a bid to play > and partner leaves it in then playing in that contract is > surely a logical alternative. >(2) It is not clear that the TDs consulted are peers (in terms of > ability) of the players in the event. >(3) The TDs consulted were not peers of a player who would bid 4S. > >I (still) think the TD was right to rule for the (potentially) >offending side, even though the objections above mean he can see >that he might be overturned on appeal. > >What does anyone else think. > >Robin I used to allow the 5D call. These days I'm less sure. The Vogon has suggested to me that the problem lies in experienced partnerships where any change of tempo absolutely keys the problem. These days I'd rule back to 4Sx, and let the AC decide. 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 |/\:\ /-- DWS = 7 Dec|Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 06:57:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:52:30 +1100 (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 EAA07092 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:52:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from pbas01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.187] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11s6E9-0004AO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:27:02 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:53:59 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3a92$b6ceb6e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, November 29, 1999 1:19 PM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >Anne Jones wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >>>Anne Jones wrote: > >>>>RTFLB. "...standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers >>>> that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." >>>> >>>>Granted a couple of GMs should realise if they have been damaged, but >>>>how often do you hear "It's OK, he had his bid" just because it is a bid >>>>they might have made. If you had decided that the call made was >>>>influenced by the UI and you do not insist that the NOs accept a >>favourable >>>>adjustment you are just taking the easy way out, not doing your L81C5 >>duty. > >>> It is not a question of taking the easy way out. I do my duty as I >>>perceive it as a Director, and few people suggest otherwise. >>> >>> Do you really think that the whole teaching of directing in England >>>and Wales is wrong in that we train Directors to instruct the table to >>>call them back if they feel they are damaged and we do not go back >>>otherwise? >>> >>> You may do it differently, Anne, but that is what the rest of us do. > >>I know this. It is how I was trained. My line of patter used to be" Call >>me back if you feel agrieved" > >>> Before Kojak jumps on me, I do not mean in a case where you >>>immediately know there is something you must deal with. If someone is >>>playing an illegal system, you are going to have to deal with it, damage >>>or no, so you must go back at the end. >>> >>> But the normal situation is that you get called because someone has >>>hesitated: you tell them the UI implications, and suggest they recall >>>you if they are unhappy in any way. Now, the rest of us do not return >>>if not recalled: are you saying we are wrong? > >>Yes. >> I must admit that without hand-records I tend to rely on the >>players to claim their damage as I was trained to do. But that is not >> what the Law says we should do in UI cases. Now that most events >>have predealt boards and the TD has hand-records there is no need >> for such slovern. We are able to adjudge during the play of a hand >>whether the bid was" justified" and it is easy enough to rule as TFLB >> tells us to. > > Ok, well I am afraid that what you are doing is a disservice to the >game. I realise that where something needs to be done we have to do it, >but I do not believe that we should be pro-active in these sort of >matters. It is not what the players would want in my view - and they >are the customers. > > I believe that we were taught the best way to direct, not the only way >because there were no hand records. > > Furthermore, how you can possibly assume you can rule without all the >evidence? When you establish that there was UI of some sort it is not >normal to find everything out that you need to know - it would give away >huge amounts of UI. Therefore, if you are going to follow this pro- >active approach, you are either going to rule without the evidence or >you are going to return to the table and get the evidence even when the >players do not want a ruling any more. If the latter, then the hand >records bit is a red herring: you might just as well always return at >the end of a hand, look at the hand, and get the rest of the evidence. >This possibility is unchanged by having hand records. So you interpret the second sentence of L16A2 as meaning:- The director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if a player correctly (in the opinion of the director) considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. It that true? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 07:18:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:18:00 +1100 (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 HAA07458 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:17:50 +1100 (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 PAA24140 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:17:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA290986658; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:17:38 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA201406657; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:17:37 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:17:30 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: TR: L25 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 HAA07460 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De: DuBreuil, Laval Date: 29 novembre, 1999 09:27 À: tsvecfob Objet: RE: L25 again No. Law 25A no more applies because S changed his mind (from blank to intention to bid...). The fact that he was thinking about last board has no importance. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City East is dealer and Passes. South has a 17 count and puts a Pass card on the table and then immediately calls the TD so say that he did not mean to Pass. The TD takes South away from the table and learns that South was thinking about the last board. His mind was blank as he pulled the Pass card from the box. L25A or not? Regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 08:05:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:05:25 +1100 (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 IAA07586 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:05:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id aa878280 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:54:07 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-221-130.tmns.net.au ([139.134.221.130]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Fatalistic-MailRouter V2.6d 5/276726); 30 Nov 1999 06:54:06 Message-ID: <05d001bf3aab$b9d7a7c0$1ede868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: 25B twice Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:53:01 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: >We had our semi-finals teams for the Dutch championships this weekend. I was >TD there and the following happened: > >East opened 2 diamonds (multi) and partner answered 2 spades. The tray came >back and east now bid 3 diamonds. North asked about the meaning and now east >discovered the 2 spade bid where he thought his partner had bid 2 NT. I was >called and both (north and east) wanted to talk to me away from the table. >Then they told me what had happened. In accordance with what I think 25B >means I allowed east to change his call in pass, telling him that the score >on the board couldn't become more than average-minus. He decided to pass. I >informed the other side that the maximum score for east-west would be >average-minus and that NS would keep their actual score. East made 2 spades >and at the other table 2 spades went one off. So for the first time in my >thirty years TD-life in the Netherlands I had to apply law 86b, resulting in >half an imp for the east-west team. >The team of EW won the semi-finals with 9.5 imps. Without north's question 3 >diamonds would have gone through, showing a semi-forcing in that suit and >west with a good hand might have tried for slam. Another winner!? >I prefer normal bridge results above ridiculous ones, so I was happy to be >able to apply 25B. But the feeling that they needed the assistance of their >opponents to get a normal result is strange. > Add *can force the TD not to follow L86B exactly as written* to the list of problems of L25B. L86B states that it applies "when the Director assigns non-balancing adjusted scores". Note the plural *scores*. This has not happened in this case, in which only one such score was awarded. The second score was an actual score, not an adjusted score. Yet another problem caused by L25B, albeit a small one. Still, if L25B were to stay around, a TD who is a stickler for following the FLB, instead of a sensible one as in this case, could end up in a position where, by law as written in the FLB, both teams lose the semi-final. >A week before, somewhere else and not involved myself, the auction went 1NT >- 2 clubs - 2NT - pass (uncontested auction). 1NT 15-17 , the pass-hand had >11 points and called the TD at once, telling he wanted to change his call. >The TD didn't allow him (not in accordance with the instructions we have). >Declarer made 10 tricks and they appealed the decision, telling they would >have chosen to play in 3 NT for at most average-minus. It appeared that the >other table played in 3 NT and the contract went one off. So the appealing >side won 7 imp's on the board (vulnerable). So what score should be given? Out of 100, a score of Law 25B = 0, a simpler replacement = 100. >7, - 7 (ignoring the appeal, since they were not damaged), 3, 3 (according >to some people the result of applying 82C), -3, -7 ( the result had the TD >the player allowed to bid 3NT) or something even more brilliant? > Did a side really appeal when they could not gain by the appeal? Is there not some system in place to screen out such appeals (NZ and parts of Australia have two different such systems)? Didn't they wait until score-up before appealing? So now I'm on the AC, after 100 people have turned down the offer to hear this appeal.... Is responder part of an offending side? I think so, because the first line of L25B2(b) refers to him as an offender. Is it a stretch to apply L12C2's "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" to the offending side, even though L12C2 is not being applied. I think not; as we do have to do something. Presumably the most unfavourable result is the table result. +7, -7. Also, L93B3 prohibits the AC from overruling the TD on a point of law or regulations. This may be relevant too. Btw, if L82C were applied, it doesn't have ot be +3, -3, does it? The TD can award an Assigned Adjusted Score under L82C, can't he? I vote to let the score stand. Peter Gill Australia. pre-editing, I'd typo'd "I vote to let the score satand." Grattan wrote: >>"The sensibility of man to trifles, and his >> insensibility to great things" - Pascal >>:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 08:18:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:18:50 +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 IAA07638 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:18:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.106]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:18:30 -0800 Message-ID: <025701bf3aaf$531a8d00$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991126094309.006900d0@pop.cais.com> <383FB6D9.C53CAB1A@village.uunet.be> <001b01bf395f$a47b8ce0$dfd33ad0@hdavis> <38426371.5BEA3A06@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:18:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >So first board, my LHO opens one club, and partner doubles. > >I alert, RHO asks, and I say "clubs". He bids 1Di, alerted, > >I don't ask (it shows 0-6 without 3 clubs), and I double, > >intending to show my AK of diamonds. LHO bids 1Sp and plays > >there, two down. > > > >During play, it turns out that partner holds 4-4 in the > >majors and thought he could show that with a double (he > >should have bid 2Di for that). > > > >My explanation is correct, but of course by the nature of > >the tournament, we have no way of proving this on paper. > > > >Yet the TD ruled that he considered it "convincing > >evidence", and he allowed the result to stand. He gave us a > >PP of 10%, which I did not appeal, although I did not agree > >with it. > > Did he say what irregularity the PP was for? > > He seems to have ruled that you committed no irregularity and > then penalized you nevertheless. Evidently the irregularity was MI, his partner's holding (4-4 majors) taken as the agreed meaning of the double, which was misexplained as showing clubs. In the absence of evidence to the contrary (that the double was a mistake), misexplanation, not misbid, is to be assumed (footnote to L75D2). I would think that testimony from a respected player, playing with a dunce (?), would be accepted as "evidence to the contrary," but that's another thread. I do not understand why the TD ruled result stands, if the 1S contract might have been avoided in favor of a superior one (2C?) had the opponents known of the 4-4 majors and no club length. Or maybe the play was adversely affected by the "MI." No harm, no foul, was the TD's opinion. "and he allowed the result to stand" would make more sense if it read "but he allowed the result to stand." Jesper, the modern approach, a new twist in the Laws, is to punish MI, harmless or not, with a PP, evidently in the belief that the Laws do not handle MI with enough severity. Perhaps the next edition of the Laws should add this infraction to the list of example PP offenses (L90B), and put a reference to L90 in all Laws, something like "This law may be augmented by L90 if the TD decides the provisions of the law do not suffice as punishment." And then cross out the last sentence in the Scope of the Laws: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Marv (Marvin L. French) aka Cato From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 08:44:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:44:56 +1100 (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 IAA07786 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:44:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id aa326612 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:44:10 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-220-129.tmns.net.au ([139.134.220.129]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Universal-MailRouter V2.6d 1/267653); 30 Nov 1999 07:44:09 Message-ID: <076901bf3ab2$b8316da0$1ede868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:42:04 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Robin Barker wrote: >This problem came up yesterday at the Tollemache qualifier >(EBU cross-imped team of eight competition for counties). > >West holds Jxxx, -, AKxxxx, KQx. > >W N E S >1D X 1NT 4H 1NT showed a balanced hand, no 5 card M >4S X P P East's pass was slow >5D X end. > >The main objections to this ruling are: >(1) Interpretations not withstanding, if you make a bid to play > and partner leaves it in then playing in that contract is > surely a logical alternative........... I personally would have bid 4S, and would adjust the score back to 4SX, assuming 4SX is not making. I base my ruling on my experience playing over 100,000 hands, and my impression that people who genuinely make such claims ("always bidding 5D if doubled") nonetheless actually sometimes pass at the table after partner's pass is in tempo. My impression is that such people, who intend no harm and fully believe that they are not tempo-sensitive, gain an advantage over those who try their best to pass in tempo in the East seat. I find that most people in my country disagree with me about this. One of my friends points out to me that although pass is obviously a Logical Alternative to 5D, for him that is not enough. If it were enough, he says Law 16 would say "must not" rather than "may not". His opinion is that pass is a LA but this hand falls into the gap between "may not" and "must not" and 5D is thus acceptable. I think he is entitled to that opinion. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 10:50:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:50:24 +1100 (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 KAA08134 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:50:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [212.140.16.85] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11saYW-0007Ht-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:50:04 +0000 Message-ID: <001301bf3ac3$e53d5960$55108cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <01bf3a90$f379a340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:46:01 -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 Jones wrote: > What I said was, I am called to the table because someone is in receipt > of UI. I instruct that the boards be played. I return and I am told there is > no damage. Fine. I accept that. If I return and I am told, It's OK, he had > his bid. > I investigate and decide myself, and adjust if I find necessary. That is > what L16A2 tells me I should do. I think that "There is no damage" and "He had his bid" are equivalent for practical purposes. After all, when would I be damaged? Only if he had made a bid that I didn't consider he had. "He had his bid" means "I do not think that he has chosen from among logical alternatives one that could have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information". If that is my grandmasterly judgement, should the Director investigate further and substitute her own? I suppose it might be necessary for a Director to protect the interests of a weaker player who might not realise the implications of Law 16, or that there existed logical alternatives to the chosen call. I have seen it written on this list that Directors do not necessarily expect players to be aware of their rights or responsibilities under Law 16. I find this rather baffling, but I have no strong views on the matter either way. However, I do believe that if a player who knows his rights under the Laws declares that he does not wish to pursue a matter further, it is not for the Director to take up arms on his behalf. A curious situation might arise if this kind of ruling were to be given. If the TD, despite my protestations, decides to give me a better score than I have obtained at the table, could I appeal against this? You may wonder why I would want to, but a situation arose in last year's Crockford's final where I was chairman of appeals. The Director gave North-South a favourable adjustment to which North-South did not believe they were entitled, and they asked me if they could appeal to have this decision revised. Amused though I was at the prospect of hearing this appeal, I advised North-South to ask the Director to waive the penalty under Law 81C8. They did, and he did, and everybody continued to play in a more or less placid frame of mind. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 10:51:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:51:29 +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 KAA08144 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:51:22 +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 SAA08231 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:51:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA16893 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:51:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:51:39 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911292351.SAA16893@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 23 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >W N E S > >1h 1s p 2s > >2h > >North refuses to accept 2h. West now bids 3d (barring east). North bids 3s. > >As the suit of the withdrawn call had been specified earlier by west there > >are no lead penalties. East leads a diamond, and (surprise, surprise) west > >ruffs (2704). > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > This one is considerably more villainous than the Rottweiller's effort > in the EBU Junior trials which was at a much earlier stage of an auction > (the thread ran to over 100 postings). I adjust. L72B1. I propose we call an insufficient bid followed by an unusual or misleading call the "Rottweiler maneuver" (RM). If you want to adjust, you can use L23 or L72B1. I don't see why we have both except for historical reasons. (Grattan?) But do you want to adjust? > From: "Anne Jones" > How can West bid Diamonds to get a D lead,in this auction, and know > that his partner will not raise him? He makes an insufficient bid, and > corrects it in such a way as to silence his partner. Yes. > So,could he have known at the time he bid 3D and silenced his partner that > it would be likely to damage his opponents? Not exactly the right question. > From: David Stevenson > 3D is not an infraction, so L23 does not apply based on what he knew > at that time. Terse but accurate. > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > I would interpret the "could have known" test as. At the time he bid 2H is > it moderately likely that West would expect a better result from barring > partner and asking for a diamond lead rather than making a sufficient > descriptive bid. Less terse, also accurate. The irregularity in L23 and 72B1 is the insufficient 2H bid, not the later 3D bid. Could it be advantageous to silence partner and then bid diamonds for the lead? Maybe... partner is a passed hand, after all, and probably doesn't have many hearts. So it could look as though the opponents will buy the contract, and getting the best lead may be critical. This is a matter of judgment, though, and we cannot tell without seeing the hand. John, above, is correct to draw a contrast with the original RM. In that instance (IIRC), partner's hand was undefined. Silencing partner in that situation seems much less likely to gain than here. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 11:25:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:25:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08254 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:25:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (dial73.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.73]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA15611; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:25:17 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <076901bf3ab2$b8316da0$1ede868b@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <076901bf3ab2$b8316da0$1ede868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:25:48 -0500 To: "Peter Gill" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 8:42 AM +1100 11/30/99, Peter Gill wrote: >One of my friends points out to me that although pass is obviously >a Logical Alternative to 5D, for him that is not enough. If it were >enough, he says Law 16 would say "must not" rather than "may >not". His opinion is that pass is a LA but this hand falls into the >gap between "may not" and "must not" and 5D is thus acceptable. >I think he is entitled to that opinion. He is perhaps entitled to hold that opinion, but he is surely wrong. Such sophistry makes a mockery of the Laws. I can't imagine the lawmakers choosing one word over another with this interpretation in mind, nor should they have to. Note that I am not addressing the question of whether or not Pass is a LA on the hand in question - I'd need to know more about the style and methods of the OS to do so. Adam Wildavsky New York City, USA From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 11:53:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:53:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08339 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:53:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA27305 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:53:13 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <076901bf3ab2$b8316da0$1ede868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:49:49 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 8:42 AM +1100 11/30/99, Peter Gill wrote: >One of my friends points out to me that although pass is obviously >a Logical Alternative to 5D, for him that is not enough. If it were >enough, he says Law 16 would say "must not" rather than "may >not". His opinion is that pass is a LA but this hand falls into the >gap between "may not" and "must not" and 5D is thus acceptable. >I think he is entitled to that opinion. This doesn't make sense. Whether something "should not", "shall not", "may not", or "must not" be done, it is an infraction to do it; the verb merely indicates the seriousness of the offense, and usually the degree of penalty attached to it. The Laws reserve "must" for fundamental rules of the game (you must follow suit), penalties for infractions (you must play a major penalty card), and a few serious infractions (you must look at your cards before bidding). The distinction here is between Law 16, which says that a player "may not" make a bid or play when he has a LA which is not suggested by the UI, and Law 73C, which says a player "must avoid taking advantage". This suggests that taking advantage of UI is a violation of ethics, while making the bid you would have made without it, when there is a question about an LA but it is unlikely you are taking advantage of the UI, is not a violation of ethics although it may lead to an adjusted score. In general, the distinction matters only when there is a conflict. If you have UI from partner suggesting that you lead a diamond, and a heart lead is a LA, you "may not" lead one; however, if you have also dropped the DT on the table, or revoked with it and then corrected the revoke, you "must" lead the major penalty card, which is a stronger rule, and there can be no penalty for making the lead suggested by the UI. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 12:02:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:02:25 +1100 (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 MAA08375 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:02:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from p68s02a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.82.105] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11sB82-00080i-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:41:03 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 01:03:54 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf3ace$c5b04200$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: BLML Date: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 12:11 AM Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C >Anne Jones wrote: > >> What I said was, I am called to the table because someone is in >receipt >> of UI. I instruct that the boards be played. I return and I am told >there is >> no damage. Fine. I accept that. If I return and I am told, It's OK, >he had >> his bid. >> I investigate and decide myself, and adjust if I find necessary. >That is >> what L16A2 tells me I should do. > >I think that "There is no damage" and "He had his bid" are equivalent >for practical purposes. After all, when would I be damaged? Only if he >had made a bid that I didn't consider he had. "He had his bid" means >"I do not think that he has chosen from among logical alternatives one >that could have been suggested over another by the unauthorised >information". If that is my grandmasterly judgement, should the >Director investigate further and substitute her own? > >I suppose it might be necessary for a Director to protect the >interests of a weaker player who might not realise the implications of >Law 16, or that there existed logical alternatives to the chosen call. >I have seen it written on this list that Directors do not necessarily >expect players to be aware of their rights or responsibilities under >Law 16. I find this rather baffling, but I have no strong views on the >matter either way. However, I do believe that if a player who knows >his rights under the Laws declares that he does not wish to pursue a >matter further, it is not for the Director to take up arms on his >behalf. > >A curious situation might arise if this kind of ruling were to be >given. If the TD, despite my protestations, decides to give me a >better score than I have obtained at the table, could I appeal against >this? You may wonder why I would want to, but a situation arose in >last year's Crockford's final where I was chairman of appeals. The >Director gave North-South a favourable adjustment to which North-South >did not believe they were entitled, and they asked me if they could >appeal to have this decision revised. Amused though I was at the >prospect of hearing this appeal, I advised North-South to ask the >Director to waive the penalty under Law 81C8. They did, and he did, >and everybody continued to play in a more or less placid frame of >mind. Perhaps it's a long time since you played against those who had no idea of their responsibilities. They are out there. A lot of the better players consider a call to be valid if it meets the requirement 70% of their peers would make. However I appreciate the point you are making, and while in practice I may well follow your precepts a lot of the time. My point is that the second sentence of L16A2 tells us that once a TD has had an UI situation drawn to his attention,he is obliged to adjust if _he_ considers etc. I am far more interested in the first sentence. I readily admit that I have no idea what it means when read in conjunction with the second, especially taking into account the footnote. When play ends, or when dummy is exposed the Td shall require the auction and play to continue. Does this make sense to you? Wales v England this weekend. I am chairman of appeals at this one. Will you be there to sit on my committee? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 13:26:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:26:30 +1100 (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 NAA08654 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:26:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.10] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11sczO-0007vy-00; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:25:58 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01bf3ada$3469e560$0a5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:25:05 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-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: 29 November 1999 22:17 Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives >Robin Barker wrote: >>This problem came up yesterday at the Tollemache qualifier >>(EBU cross-imped team of eight competition for counties). >> >>West holds Jxxx, -, AKxxxx, KQx. >> >>W N E S >>1D X 1NT 4H 1NT showed a balanced hand, no 5 card M >>4S X P P East's pass was slow >>5D X end. >> .................... \x/ ..................... > >I base my ruling on my experience playing over 100,000 hands, >and my impression that people who genuinely make such claims >("always bidding 5D if doubled") nonetheless actually sometimes >pass at the table after partner's pass is in tempo. My impression >is that such people, who intend no harm and fully believe that they >are not tempo-sensitive, gain an advantage over those who try their >best to pass in tempo in the East seat. > +=+ But do all roads lead to Rome? I have said little about this hand, and I am not about to cast doubt on the views floated. But I do not recall seeing anyone ask about the methods and style of the partnership. If I make that Four Spade bid, and partner does not crucify me with too much thinking, I would believe the best removal after the double is to 5C. I have to think it atrocious judgment to stay with 4Sx. That is why I would want to learn more about the way this particular partnership bids (apart from bravely, that is). Specifically, is this one possible hand for the 1NT response: x.x.x./ K.x.x./ x./ A J x.x.x.x. ? And may I expect that East does not have a biddable Spade suit? The question that occupies my thoughts concerns what the 'offender' may learn from the slow pass; is not the hand I have quoted a more likely 'think' than a balanced hand with three Spades? ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 14:21:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:21:52 +1100 (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 OAA08791 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:21:41 +1100 (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 ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:19:31 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001b01bf395f$a47b8ce0$dfd33ad0@hdavis> References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991126094309.006900d0@pop.cais.com> <383FB6D9.C53CAB1A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:13:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Wrong. The footnote does not say this at all. It intructs the TD to >presume MI *in the absence of evidence to the contrary*. If you want to >interpret this literally, then once a player says that he or his partner >misbid, the footnote is no longer applicable. A player's statement is >evidence. Therefore evidence of misbid exists, which is all that the >footnote requires. The presumption of MI is now no longer applicable, and >the TD should make a full investigation and rule according to the findings, >ignoring the footnote completely. > >I'm not quite as literal as my statement above. My own interpretation of the >footnote is that after full investigation, if the TD honestly has no idea >whether he is looking at MI or misbid, he rules MI. IMO the footnote was >never intended to override the TD's judgement. > >> I am not saying that the Law presumes that there is an >> agreement, but it does instruct the TD to rule as if there >> were. >> > >The footnote instructs no such thing. IMO, you are using an overzealous >interpretation of an explanatory footnote to override a player's rights >under Law 40A to make any call or play that is not based on a partnership >understanding. Thank you, Hirsch. You have stated succinctly what's been bothering me about the dWs all along. :-) 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/AwUBOENCvr2UW3au93vOEQKHAQCfX2OtnpggfgnIHTwtIKBH5eBuZTMAoM+A zqxwpoiwzLsSvavcBFoXIfuC =54Bp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 14:22:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:22:09 +1100 (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 OAA08797 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:21:49 +1100 (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 ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:19:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199911281416.JAA13355@freenet3.carleton.ca> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:18:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: L25 again Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Looks like L25B to me. It was neither a mispoke nor mispull, and >clearly a "pause for thought". Seems to me that if his mind was truly blank when he pulled out the pass card, his hand was acting on its on initiative, without instructions from his mind. And _that_, it seems to me, is clearly a mispull. :-) I think "pause for thought" must refer to thought _about the call being made_. Otherwise you penalize players for thinking about, for example, where they want to go for dinner after the session. 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/AwUBOENCxb2UW3au93vOEQKFFwCgpDIXVtuJ+YC2GPwHd3MOEY9gCycAn3S+ gEI3NUxnqEpmd+xEjYg1adxf =zO9Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 15:15:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:15:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08945 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:14:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-119.s373.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.212.119] helo=hdavis) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 11segB-0007L2-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:14:17 -0500 Message-ID: <00d401bf3ae9$598bfa40$77d43ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$d9b455a0$3e45accf@hdavis> <383667C4.21CAF321@village.uunet.be> <001c01bf3392$e6d00ee0$777aaccf@hdavis> <3.0.1.32.19991126094309.006900d0@pop.cais.com> <383FB6D9.C53CAB1A@village.uunet.be> <001b01bf395f$a47b8ce0$dfd33ad0@hdavis> <3840FF24.FE6E82F0@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:14:01 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, November 28, 1999 5:08 AM Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > OK Hirsh, now we are really back again where we started from > It's got to be better than some of the places we have been ;) > > "standard of proof for misbid". > > Perhaps we should start a thread with that subject. > -- Must we? IMO "standard of proof" is where the judgement of the TD comes in. If the TD is convinced one way or the other by the facts at the table, then that is the ruling. If the TD is in doubt about MI./misbid after hearing all of the evidence, then the oft-cited footnote applies, and MI is ruled. Why not just leave it at that? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 15:49:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:49:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com [139.134.5.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA09019 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:49:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da847083 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:48:23 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-224-52.tmns.net.au ([139.134.224.52]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Phantom-MailRouter V2.6d 3/368058); 30 Nov 1999 14:48:22 Message-ID: <003801bf3aed$fab836a0$34e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:47:16 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >>>1D X 1NT 4H 1NT showed a balanced hand, no 5 card M >>>4S X P P East's pass was slow >>>5D X end. Peter Gill wrote: >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >And may I expect >that East does not have a biddable Spade suit? My post was based on the premise that the description above of the 1NT response was shorthand for 1D - (X) - 1Major = 5+ cards, a not uncommon treatment. An assumption, I admit, but not unreasonable IMO. As indicated by Grattan, the likelihood of East having four spades is crucial information and further enquiries to the players could clarify the situation. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 18:15:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA09328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:15:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@24-25-195-37.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA09320 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:15:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.106]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:15:33 -0800 Message-ID: <028e01bf3b02$bcc0f980$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01bf3a90$f379a340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <001301bf3ac3$e53d5960$55108cd4@davidburn> Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:15:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: > Anne Jones wrote: > > > What I said was, I am called to the table because someone is in > receipt > > of UI. I instruct that the boards be played. I return and I am told > there is > > no damage. Fine. I accept that. If I return and I am told, It's OK, > he had > > his bid. > > I investigate and decide myself, and adjust if I find necessary. > That is > > what L16A2 tells me I should do. > > I think that "There is no damage" and "He had his bid" are equivalent > for practical purposes. After all, when would I be damaged? Only if he > had made a bid that I didn't consider he had. "He had his bid" means > "I do not think that he has chosen from among logical alternatives one > that could have been suggested over another by the unauthorised > information". If that is my grandmasterly judgement, should the > Director investigate further and substitute her own? Probably not, for a grandmaster who knows about LAs. However, most players who say "He had his bid" do *not* mean what you say it means. They are ignorant of the fact that when there are several calls that are logical, one must not choose one that has been demonstrably suggested by UI. Kaplan gave this example: A player holds S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJ82, non-vulnerable vs vulnerable. LHO opens 4H, partner hesitates 25 seconds and passes, RHO passes, and the player bids 4S, making five. Most players would agree that "he had his bid," but that is not the proper criterion. Was pass a logical alternative to bidding 4S, opposite a hesitation that suggested action? Yes, pass would be right quite often. Thus, the score should be adjusted to 4H. (No quibbling about the specific example, please, it's just illustrating a valid point). In a case like this, a TD may well rule damage even when the opponents don't think there was any. It is not enough to come back to the table and ask, "Do you feel you were injured?" That is a decision for the TD, not for the players, although the TD may accept a David Burn's opinion. As a player, I don't like to claim even obvious damage, and would prefer that the TD make that evaluation without my input when possible. Many opponents get very upset when someone implies (to their minds) that they have been unethical. Let them get upset with the TD, not with me. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 18:40:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA09418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:40:11 +1100 (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 SAA09413 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:40:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.6.47] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11shtF-0000bA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:39:57 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01bf3b05$81061d00$2f06063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199911292351.SAA16893@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law 23 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:35:40 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > Could it be advantageous to silence partner and then bid diamonds for > the lead? Maybe... partner is a passed hand, after all, and probably > doesn't have many hearts. So it could look as though the opponents > will buy the contract, and getting the best lead may be critical. This > is a matter of judgment, though, and we cannot tell without seeing the > hand. > > John, above, is correct to draw a contrast with the original RM. In > that instance (IIRC), partner's hand was undefined. Silencing partner > in that situation seems much less likely to gain than here. It is obvious that if you are going to bid a void, your side is going to be very much better placed (and the opponents "likely" within the context of L72 to be damaged) if you first create a position where partner cannot raise that void. Hence, I would consider an adjustment automatic in both cases. However, if a contrast is to be drawn, I would say that this auction: S W N E 1H 1S Pass 2S 3D on a 2-7-0-4 shape is rather more likely to result in a loss to the offending side (who may very well play in three diamonds instead of three hearts) than opening a Multi out of turn on a one count and then bidding a spade void instead of a six-card heart suit (even if you play in one spade, this may very well turn out a good thing to do). Whilst in the above auction East is a passed hand, that does not mean he is a limited hand; he may have a penalty double of one spade, among other things. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 22:13:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:13:01 +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 WAA09978 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:12:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-233.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.233]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13491 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:12:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38428B51.3CADB1B3@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:18:57 +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: 25B twice References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Case one : "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > We had our semi-finals teams for the Dutch championships this weekend. I was > TD there and the following happened: > > East opened 2 diamonds (multi) and partner answered 2 spades. The tray came > back and east now bid 3 diamonds. North asked about the meaning and now east > discovered the 2 spade bid where he thought his partner had bid 2 NT. I was > called and both (north and east) wanted to talk to me away from the table. > Then they told me what had happened. In accordance with what I think 25B > means I allowed east to change his call in pass, telling him that the score > on the board couldn't become more than average-minus. He decided to pass. I > informed the other side that the maximum score for east-west would be > average-minus and that NS would keep their actual score. East made 2 spades > and at the other table 2 spades went one off. So for the first time in my > thirty years TD-life in the Netherlands I had to apply law 86b, resulting in > half an imp for the east-west team. Which would be how exactly ? NS : -110 and teammates -50 = -160 = -4 IMPs EW : -3 IMPS average is indeed -0.5 to NS and +0.5 to EW. that does of course throw away the good score for NS at the other table. > The team of EW won the semi-finals with 9.5 imps. Without north's question 3 > diamonds would have gone through, showing a semi-forcing in that suit and > west with a good hand might have tried for slam. Another winner!? > I prefer normal bridge results above ridiculous ones, so I was happy to be > able to apply 25B. But the feeling that they needed the assistence of their > opponents to get a normal result is strange. > But true. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 30 22:13:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:13:02 +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 WAA09979 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:12:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-233.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.233]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13503 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:12:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38429049.14CD4B95@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:40:09 +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: 25B twice References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Case two "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > A week before, somewhere else and not involved myself, the auction went 1NT > - 2 clubs - 2NT - pass (uncontested auction). !NT 15-17 , the pass-hand had > 11 points and called the TD at once, telling he wanted to change his call. > The TD didn't allow him (not in accordance with the instructions we have). > Declarer made 10 tricks and they appealed the decision, telling they would > have chosen to play in 3 NT for at most average-minus. It appeared that the > other table played in 3 NT and the contract went one off. So the appealing > side won 7 imp's on the board (vulnerable). So what score should be given? > 7, - 7 (ignoring the appeal, since they were not damaged), 3, 3 (according > to some people the result of applying 82C), -3, -7 ( the result had the TD > the player allowed to bid 3NT) or something even more brilliant? How about director's error : +3 to both sides ! No seriously. Let's assume a few things. The assumptions are all mine and are chosen so as to give the most interesting ruling. Let's assume first that the director had to made a judgment call, about whether or not to allow 25B. Not a director's error, which the CTD could change, but a judgment. Let's assume then that this judgment is appealed, and the AC decides to uphold the appeal and render the judgment faulty. Let's also assume that the ruling is appealed before the result from the other table gets known, or that we are ruling under a more favourable counting system which does not use the other table's result. What should the ruling be at this table alone : Let's further more assume that the play in 2NT is different from the one in 3NT. In 2NT you have a safety play, which always results in 10 tricks. In 3NT you have to choose one of two lines, one which results in 8 tricks, the other in 10. The AC would allow a non-offending player to find the correct line 70% of the time. The result at this table would then be : For the non-offenders : 70% of 3NT-1 and 30% of 3NT+1, so since their partners played 3NT down, 30% of -12 IMPs = -3.6 IMPs. For the "offenders", who have become non-offenders through director's error : 70% of 3NT+1, brought down to -3IMPs through L25B, and 30% of 3NT-1, all square, brought down to -3, so in total -3 IMPs. Remark that I use L12C3 to do equity, that I give both sides the benefit of the doubt in the contract of 3NT (70% made for the bidders, 70% down for the opponents) and that I use 70%/30% because that is what normally results in 60%/40% scores. There is one further calculation I would like to see introduced. The result for the "offending" side at the "offending" table should be given as -3IMPs regardless of the result of the other table. That side's result should then be calculated separately and added to it. In this case that should give something like : result for offending side at other table : +100. normal result at other table : 50% of -600, 50% of +100. IMPs for other table : 50% of +12 = +6. Result at this table : 70% of +600, 30% of -100. normal result at this table : 50% of either. normal IMP at this table positive, then changed according to L25B. IMPs for this table : -3. total for this side : +3. or perhaps even some other form of adding of those two. > > A short reaction on the inadvertent pass with 15-17. Reading 25A there seems > no possibility of changing this call. Still I feel that the wording should > allow such a change. Don't worry, no such instructions given to 'my' TD's > (yet). > Don't confound the issue and let's keep it with 25B. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html