From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 00:55:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 00:55:11 +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 AAA10481 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 00:55:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:54:37 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA04882 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:33:10 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: 25B twice Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:27:55 +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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >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. This looks strange to me. Why would a player in 3NT play for 8 tricks when he has a safety play for 10 tricks? Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 02:39:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 02:39:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (IDENT:root@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11053 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 02:39:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21397; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:41:19 +0800 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:41:19 +0800 Message-Id: <199911301541.XAA21397@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: root To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A controversial Ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Auction: (NS vulnerable, no screens, collegiate KO teams final) North East South West a: 15+ to 18 hcp 1NT-a Dbl Pass 2H-b b: alerted, explained as transfer to S Pass 2S Dbl Pass-c c: long hesitation (not disputed) Pass Rdbl-d Pass 2NT-e d: long hesitation (not disputed) Pass Pass Dbl [end] e: director called at this point. N-S mistimed the defense in 2NTx, leading to +500 instead of +800 (on the lie of the cards), when 4S makes and was bid at the other table. [1] Your opinions based just on the auction? [2] What would your ruling be, if the EW hands were (as they were roughly) S:AK H:Kxx D:KJxx C:Qxxx (east) and S:xxx H:QTxxx D:xxx C:xx [3] What is your opinion of the actual ruling, that result stands? [According to my sources, a `senior National Director of the ACBL' opined that the table result should stand. A different one said that he would rule 2Sxx -5 ... your call, ladies and gentlemen.] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 03:10:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:10:59 +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 DAA11161 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:10:47 +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 QAA29312; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:10:23 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA05443; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:10:21 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:10:21 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 QAA13095; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:10:17 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA04118; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:10:17 GMT Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:10:17 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199911301610.QAA04118@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: martin@spase.nl Subject: RE: 25B twice Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Martin Sinot" > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >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. > > This looks strange to me. Why would a player in 3NT play > for 8 tricks when he has a safety play for 10 tricks? Martin I imagine Herman meant "In 2NT you have a safety play for 8 tricks, which as the cards lie always results in 10 tricks." e.g. in 2NT you cash SA from AQJ for 8 tricks, making 10 as the SK is singleton; in 3NT you finesse SQ, going off. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 03:39:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:39:23 +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 DAA11252 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:39:12 +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 LAA01301 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:39:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA17406 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:39:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:39:31 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911301639.LAA17406@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 > From: "David Burn" > 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. Obviously true but not the right question to be asking. _At the moment the insufficient bid (or other infraction) occurs_, a villain might consider two alternatives: 1) bid normally, or 2) silence partner and bid a void. The proper question is whether 2 might have been more attractive than 1. If partner's hand is undefined (and may well be strong or have support for one's suit), it surely tends to make 2 less attractive. Of course the question is a matter of bridge judgment in each individual case. > 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. I am not about to match my bridge judgment against David Burn's, and anyway we have yet to see the actual hand. (And were we told the vulnerability and form of scoring?) Still, how likely can a penalty double be after spades are raised and opener holds two? We also don't know the partnership's style for raising hearts, but in many partnerships East cannot hold four and is very unlikely to hold three. As I say, I'm not making any judgment on particular hands, just pointing out one aspect to consider. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 03:47:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:47:25 +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 DAA11302 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:47:17 +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 LAA01740 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:47:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA17422 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:47:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:47:37 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911301647.LAA17422@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Auction: (NS vulnerable, no screens, collegiate KO teams final) > North East South West a: 15+ to 18 hcp > 1NT-a Dbl Pass 2H-b b: alerted, explained as transfer to S > Pass 2S Dbl Pass-c c: long hesitation (not disputed) > Pass Rdbl-d Pass 2NT-e d: long hesitation (not disputed) > Pass Pass Dbl [end] e: director called at this point. One important piece of information is missing. In this partnership, is East's redouble unambiguously takeout, or might it be natural? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 03:59:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:59:36 +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 DAA11355 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:59:28 +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 QAA01105; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:58:58 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA11274; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:58:56 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:58:55 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 QAA13263; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:58:53 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA04136; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:58:53 GMT Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:58:53 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199911301658.QAA04136@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: root@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: root Please include your name (out of politeness) and Country (so we know whose regulations you play under). If you are Mr Root (author of bridge books, etc.), I apologise. I guess .tw = Taiwan, but references to ACBL suggest otherwise. > Auction: (NS vulnerable, no screens, collegiate KO teams final) > North East South West a: 15+ to 18 hcp > 1NT-a Dbl Pass 2H-b b: alerted, explained as transfer to S > Pass 2S Dbl Pass-c c: long hesitation (not disputed) > Pass Rdbl-d Pass 2NT-e d: long hesitation (not disputed) > Pass Pass Dbl [end] e: director called at this point. > > N-S mistimed the defense in 2NTx, leading to +500 instead of +800 (on > the lie of the cards), when 4S makes and was bid at the other table. > > [1] Your opinions based just on the auction? c => West has hearts, so alert and explanation at (b) is UI; there may be no LA to pass here. Hesitation suggests not spades. d => Appears to be a serious infraction (unless he thought XX was to play _and_ West would leave it in, which I doubt); pass is surely a LA. Hesitation suggests 2SX is not good, however XX may not improve the situation ("jumping from the frying pan into the fire")! e => Pass is surely a LA here. > [2] What would your ruling be, if the EW hands were (as they were roughly) > S:AK H:Kxx D:KJxx C:Qxxx (east) and S:xxx H:QTxxx D:xxx C:xx Pass at (c) is probably not an infraction. XX at (d) is an infraction (Pass is a LA), but does not cause damage. Pass at (e) is an infraction, as Pass is a LA: surely East can have AKQxxx,xx,Ax,Axx and South intended his double as TO, on this auction. So I rule 2SXX-5. > [3] What is your opinion of the actual ruling, that result stands? I hope it didn't allow EW to win. > [According to my sources, a `senior National Director of the ACBL' > opined that the table result should stand. A different one said > that he would rule 2Sxx -5 ... your call, ladies and gentlemen.] Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 05:11:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 05:11:12 +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 FAA11565 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 05:11:01 +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 ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:10:51 -0800 Message-ID: <02c801bf3b5e$48c07400$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911301647.LAA17422@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:09:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Auction: (NS vulnerable, no screens, collegiate KO teams final) > > North East South West a: 15+ to 18 hcp > > 1NT-a Dbl Pass 2H-b b: alerted, explained as transfer to S > > Pass 2S Dbl Pass-c c: long hesitation (not disputed) > > Pass Rdbl-d Pass 2NT-e d: long hesitation (not disputed) > > Pass Pass Dbl [end] e: director called at this point. > > One important piece of information is missing. In this partnership, > is East's redouble unambiguously takeout, or might it be natural? > How could it be natural, with East holding a doubleton AK of spades? Based on that, the redouble was unambiguously S.O.S., for takeout. Was it demonstrably suggested by West's hesitation over the double? Yes, of course. The contract should be adjusted to 2S doubled, down whatever, no problem. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 05:20:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 05:20:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from tantalum.btinternet.com (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA11602 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 05:20:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [212.140.6.94] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11srt4-0001oX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:20:27 +0000 Message-ID: <001901bf3b5e$ecb65480$5e068cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199911301639.LAA17406@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law 23 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:15:45 -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: > > From: "David Burn" > > 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. > > Obviously true but not the right question to be asking. > > _At the moment the insufficient bid (or other infraction) occurs_, a > villain might consider two alternatives: 1) bid normally, or 2) silence > partner and bid a void. The proper question is whether 2 might have > been more attractive than 1. If partner's hand is undefined (and may > well be strong or have support for one's suit), it surely tends to make > 2 less attractive. Of course the question is a matter of bridge > judgment in each individual case. I am quite sure that what actually happened, both in this case and the earlier one, was this: the player made a genuine error with no villainous intent (an insufficient bid in this case, a bid out of turn in the other). When the consequences of this were pointed out, the player realised that he was now in the delightful position of being able to perpetrate a bid that he would not previously have contemplated, because one of the major risks that would render it unimaginable in normal circumstances had providentially been removed. Now, there are those who would say that if that is the case, the Laws permit the player to make his "unimaginable" bid following the infraction because he did not know at the time of the infraction itself that he would be in the position of being able to profit from it subsequently. I do not think that this view is tenable - it is precisely for this reason that the Laws do not require us to consider what the player in fact knew, only what he could have known. I think that this is the majority, if not the unanimous, view of this list as a result of the earlier discussion. A player who corrects an illegal bid to an ostensibly natural bid of a void could certainly have known that the Laws would enable him to do so without being raised to a dangerous level by partner, and (of course) having the option to correct to his real suit when doubled without the risk of being given preference to his void. It is my view that since a player could know this, the Laws require a score adjustment if a player in fact follows this course of action and damage occurs to the non-offenders in a manner that was at least foreseeable. That which can be foreseen and which subsequently comes to pass in the "normal" course of events cannot in my view be described as other than "likely" within the context of L72. The question that Steve raises above is not, in my view, the "proper" question at all. One does not ask: is it more likely that a player will cause damage to the non-offenders by committing an infraction and then bidding a void than by bidding normally? One asks simply: is it likely that a player will cause damage by following this course, regardless of what his other options may have been? One imagines that West's hand in the original case was such that he was not prepared to bid 4H over an enemy bid of 3S (since he did not in fact do so), but that he was at least prepared to contest to 3H (since that is what he effectually did). In that case, West could have foreseen that a diamond lead against 3S would be more profitable for his side than a heart lead (since this was indeed likely); he could have known at the time he bid 2H that this would enable him to request a diamond lead against 3S without the risk of incurring a huge minus score in, say, five hearts doubled; the score should be adjusted under L72 in consequence. In short, West's bid of 3D would show an ill-gotten profit as long as the opponents did not pass it out, and it is certainly "likely" in the legal sense that they would not. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 05:41:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 05:41:33 +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 FAA11695 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 05:41:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from cosmos (cosmos [132.156.47.32]) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22156 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:41:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:41:12 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson X-Sender: johnson@cosmos To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling In-Reply-To: <02c801bf3b5e$48c07400$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Marvin L. French wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > Auction: (NS vulnerable, no screens, collegiate KO teams final) > > > North East South West a: 15+ to 18 hcp > > > 1NT-a Dbl Pass 2H-b b: alerted, explained as transfer to S > > > Pass 2S Dbl Pass-c c: long hesitation (not disputed) > > > Pass Rdbl-d Pass 2NT-e d: long hesitation (not disputed) > > > Pass Pass Dbl [end] e: director called at this point. > > > > One important piece of information is missing. In this partnership, > > is East's redouble unambiguously takeout, or might it be natural? > > > How could it be natural, with East holding a doubleton AK of spades? It seems to me they're playing OBM. *Slow* redouble is takeout. > Based on that, the redouble was unambiguously S.O.S., for takeout. Don't see it. What it their agreements makes this unambiguous? Yes, it was *intended* as takeout, but that's Steve's point I think. Why should it not be business? > Was it demonstrably suggested by West's hesitation over the double? > Yes, of course. The contract should be adjusted to 2S doubled, > down whatever, no problem. On the information presented I'm thinking C+E hearing too. UI knowingly used. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 06:21:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 06:21:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe37.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA11807 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 06:20:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 21135 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Nov 1999 19:20:14 -0000 Message-ID: <19991130192014.21134.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.160.98] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <199911301541.XAA21397@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:20:12 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: root To: Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 9:41 AM Subject: A controversial Ruling > Auction: (NS vulnerable, no screens, collegiate KO teams final) > North East South West a: 15+ to 18 hcp > 1NT-a Dbl Pass 2H-b b: alerted, explained as transfer to S > Pass 2S Dbl Pass-c c: long hesitation (not disputed) > Pass Rdbl-d Pass 2NT-e d: long hesitation (not disputed) > Pass Pass Dbl [end] e: director called at this point. > > N-S mistimed the defense in 2NTx, leading to +500 instead of +800 (on > the lie of the cards), when 4S makes and was bid at the other table. > > [1] Your opinions based just on the auction? > [2] What would your ruling be, if the EW hands were (as they were roughly) > S:AK H:Kxx D:KJxx C:Qxxx (east) and S:xxx H:QTxxx D:xxx C:xx > [3] What is your opinion of the actual ruling, that result stands? > > [According to my sources, a `senior National Director of the ACBL' > opined that the table result should stand. A different one said > that he would rule 2Sxx -5 ... I might get the impression there are some scary TDs out there . Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 06:38:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 06:38:13 +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 GAA11895 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 06:38:04 +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 OAA09526 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:37:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA17616 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:38:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:38:13 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911301938.OAA17616@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > How could it be natural, with East holding a doubleton AK of spades? ("it" = redouble) Because East has a strong hand, and he expects his partner to have spades. Why shouldn't redouble be natural? We really need to know the partnership agreement about the redouble in order to rule. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 06:51:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 06:51:39 +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 GAA11976 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 06:51:32 +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 IAA07929 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 08:51:24 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991201085153.0095f100@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 08:51:53 +1300 To: From: Michael Albert Subject: Re: Law 23 In-Reply-To: <001901bf3b5e$ecb65480$5e068cd4@davidburn> References: <199911301639.LAA17406@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Various people have been commenting on the 1h-1s-p-2s/(2h)3d sequence along the lines below: > >I am quite sure that what actually happened, both in this case and the > Overzealous snipping (of which I normally approve) has hidden the fact that the example was presented as "I hasten to add, completely hypothetical" (which is why I didn't include actual cards or form of scoring!) --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 1 06:52:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA11997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 06:52:04 +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 GAA11985 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 06:51:55 +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 ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:51:42 -0800 Message-ID: <02e901bf3b6c$5f2f37e0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Boston NABC Appeals Case 1 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:46:41 -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 APPEALS CASE 1 Subject (Tempo): Event: NABC Life Master Pairs, November 19, 1999 - Second Qualifying Session Bd: 13 Rick Goldstein Dlr: North S J Vul: Both H 8 3 2 D K 6 2 C K Q 10 7 5 4 Paul Nason Bud Biswas S 10 7 5 S A K Q 8 3 H J 10 7 H A 9 6 5 D J 9 8 7 3 D A Q C 8 2 C J 6 Laura Brill S 9 6 4 2 H K Q 4 D 10 5 4 C A 9 3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - Pass 1S Pass Pass 2C 2H 3C Pass Pass Dbl (1) Pass 3S All Pass (1) Break in tempo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Facts: 3S made three, plus 140 for E/W. The Director was called when it took East 10 seconds to double 3C. All players agreed the pause had been 10 seconds. The Director ruled that pass was a logical alternative to West's 3S bid. The contract was changed to 3C doubled, made three, plus 670 for N/S. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East did not attend the hearing. West was in a hurry to catch a train. The facts not being in dispute, and the parties being amicable to it, an abbreviated fact finding session ensued with both sides stating their case. West then left. West stated that his own club length told him that East's double was manifestly not a trump stack. His own length in both majors detracted from his partner's tricks on defense while increasing the chance that 3S would make. He considered that bidding 3S was simply a bridge valuation and that the tempo of the double was irrelevant. E/W have played together twice in the last year - the length of the partnership. N/S believed that a slow double made removal to 3S by West more attractive. At the vulnerability the chance of plus 200 from 3C doubled and minus 200 from 3S were real. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee Decision: The Committee was of the opinion that the correct bridge bid with the West cards was to remove the double of 3C to 3S. While at any other vulnerability there would clearly be no logical alternative to this action because of the major-suit length, here it was worth further consideration to ensure that the same logic applied. How significant was the chance of turning plus 200 into plus 140 (or even minus 100 or worse)? The Committee decided that notwithstanding the vulnerability although passing might be an alternative it was not a logical alternative. The Committee changed the contract to 3S made three, plus 140 for E/W. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Phil Brady, Dick Budd, Jerry Gaer, Jon Wittes ###################################################### Passing is illogical? I'll quote Kaplan again: "Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus, the score should be adjusted...." Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 08:58:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 07:59:01 +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 HAA12193 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 07:58:50 +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 PAA12763 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:58:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA17719 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:59:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:59:05 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911302059.PAA17719@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Boston NABC Appeals Case 1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" > APPEALS CASE 1 > Passing is illogical? I'll quote Kaplan again: > > "Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, > absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus, the > score should be adjusted...." While I tend to agree that passing is a LA in the ACBL, nobody seems to have addressed "suggested over another." Is it obvious that the slow double suggests pulling? I would have thought the primary meaning of double would be takeout or general values and the most likely distribution 5431. The hesitation suggests some other action was considered, but we don't know whether it might have been to bid a suit (even diamonds) or to pass. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 09:14:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:14:24 +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 JAA12523 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:14:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 98916 invoked by uid 0); 30 Nov 1999 22:13:29 -0000 Message-ID: <19991130221329.98915.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:13:29 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:13:29 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >From: Craig Senior > > > 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. > The intent of PPs, whatever sort they may be, is to improve procedure and make a fairer, politer, better game. They are not to punish, really - if I could fix all propriety violations without having to fine anyone anything, that would be best. Unfortunately, some people are not "gentlemen" (of either gender), and only things that hit their (pocketbook/ego/score) trigger their "education" function. The punishment should not, however, be misinterpreted as the primary goal of PPs. PPfines, I agree, can create some arbitrariness problems - which is why I am hesitant to apply them except on overwhelming evidence, hyper-gratuitous offensiveness, or history of offence (or, when I'm being official ACBL-type person, when required by ZT reg. I have been known to mishear what people have said to me, however, and ask them to repeat it after idly commenting on what I am required by the ACBL to do). Does a PPw educate? Yes. Does a PPw correct inappropriate behaviour? Most of the time. Do they at least do a better job, arbitrary and scattered as they are, of bringing the game closer to our goal than not awarding them, when the TD comes across violations of proprieties? Undeniably. Are they our only recourse? Of course not, and they would be ineffective if they were. So you can't give a warning like "next time you do this, we'r'a gonna nail ya", because the next time she does this, it could be across the country, with a completely different TD. However, massive record-keeping, "3-strikes" policies and crime-happy American politicians notwithstanding (and they're coming up here...grumble...especially considering we have a "hard-on-crime" and anti-"fat-cat politician" Reform MP who ain't leavin' the house of Commons (or his salary, or his pension) just because he's going to jail for 18 months), "What you did was a violation of the properties, and is why. I know you didn't mean it that way, it probably didn't even cross your mind[1], but it could be taken that way, and you wouldn't want that, and we wouldn't want that." will stop 90+% of offenders from reoffending[2]. What do you mean, they're meaningless? They work for the large majority of offenders (provided we get to them early enough); for the chronic offenders, there's the stick (PPf), which will get them sooner or later; and for the truly unethical, there's the boot (C&E). And in the ACBL, at least, there's the Recorder, which is intended to be the tracking mechanism you mention above. Obviously it's not for the trivial - but I think it should be used more often than it is (and I'll take my share of the blame for that one). All in all, I think we have a fairly effective array of weapons to combat offensive behaviour. I am not particularly happy with the way they are being used right now, but that's another rant. And part of that rant is that we don't issue enough PPw. Education first. Punishment next. Ostracism if necessary. Michael. [1] it's amazing how sincere I can sound when I say that. Especially when I believe it. Unfortunately, at my club... [2] and educate all four players at the table about the problems at the same time. Likely all four will learn something from the PPw, and even if one non-offender thinks "Oh, I didn't know that. I should watch out in case I do it, too" or "Oh, I didn't know that. The next time someone does this to me, instead of walking away steaming, I can call the director and do something about it" I'm happy. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 09:25:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:25:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f73.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA12572 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:25:15 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 46938 invoked by uid 0); 30 Nov 1999 22:24:29 -0000 Message-ID: <19991130222429.46937.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:24:29 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25 again Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:24:29 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Ed Reppert > > >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. :-) > IIRC, his mind was on the last hand. It may not have been connected to his hands, but it was thinking. >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. > Yep. And a good thing that is, my friend. L74B1. If they're thinking about dinner when they're supposed to be bidding, they're violating the proprieties and harming their opponents (by delaying the game, if for no other reason); I see no reason to be lenient on them. Frankly, IMHO, anything that minimizes at-the-table post-mortems (at least when there's still a board to play, but I could be argued into even after) is a good thing. So, if you make a call, and when you think about it (even if it was the first time you thought about it) you want to change it, L25B. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 09:51:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:47:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from tst.dk (tst.tst.dk [147.29.107.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12662 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:47:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <115201>; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:47:45 +0100 Message-Id: <99Nov30.234745cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:45:08 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Innocent or double shot? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA12665 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps you would like to share your opinion on this one, which has caused some debate in the Danish AC: Teams of four 2. division Dealer: W, Game: All J63 Q8 KQT8542 T AKQ7 T9 AT6 K432 AJ6 3 Q95 AJ8432 8542 J975 97 K76 S W N E 2N P 3C(1) (1) Asking P 3D(2) D 3S(3) (2) Promising 4-card major P 3N(4) P 4C (3) 4-card hearts P 4D(5) P 4H(5) (4) 4-card spades P 4S(5) P 4N(6) (5) cuebid P 5C(7) P 6C (6) RKCB 30-41 P P P (7) 0 or 3 aces The play: 1. Diamond to A 2. Club to K 3. Diamond, ruffed 4. Club 5. Club to 9 6. Diamond, ruffed (South discards Spade 2) 7. Spade 10 - (fumble) Spade 5 - Spade 7 - Spade J Result: 11 tricks. TD adjusted to 12 tricks. Please assume inadvertent fumble (L73D1). Questions: 1: What constitutes innocence in the L73F2-sense? 2: Do you consider this East innocent in the L73F2-sense? 3: Do you think East is double shotting? 4: If you decide to adjust using L12C2, do you deny East redress with reference to L73D1 (last sentence) or this WBFLC decision from Lille: "The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')" 5: Assuming a L12C3-jurisdiction, what do you consider an equitable result? Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 10:02:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:02:38 +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 KAA12740 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:02:31 +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 ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:02:14 -0800 Message-ID: <031901bf3b86$fd7f5460$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911301938.OAA17616@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:58:28 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > How could it be natural, with East holding a doubleton AK of spades? > ("it" = redouble) > > Because East has a strong hand, and he expects his partner to have > spades. Why shouldn't redouble be natural? East could have a singleton spade and double 1NT. Most low-level reopening redoubles are SOS for most players, and I don't think it is "at all probable" that anyone would play this redouble as natural. Doubled into game, and not satisfied, with a possible Yarborough in the West hand? Very unlikely, and there is no evidence pointing in that direction. However, if the TD thinks that this pair might play the redouble as natural, then 2Sxx is the right assigned contract. > > We really need to know the partnership agreement about the redouble > in order to rule. We also need to know more about the play. If the defense was so bad that it might be considered irrational, then perhaps North-West should keep the table result. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 10:04:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:04:41 +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 KAA12759 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:04:28 +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 11swJm-000BXG-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:04:19 +0000 Message-ID: <0aQmiHAk0mQ4Ew$a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:10:12 +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> <3.0.6.32.19991129164354.007d2ea0@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991129164354.007d2ea0@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: > >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. I am not investigating *his* motives, but the motives of another player who might make the bid in his place. If someone else held the hand - perhaps someone without low moral values - might he act this way deliberately? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 1 10:04:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:04:42 +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 KAA12760 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:04:30 +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 11swJo-000BXF-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:04:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:07:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? References: <01b801bf3a29$9e3978e0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01b801bf3a29$9e3978e0$6a30d2cc@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: >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. Oh dear! Have you never played in a big event, Marvin? You start making these sort of announcements, and players will listen to announcements by the directing staff less than they do now - which is probably in the 25% region. A global warning is worse than a time-waster - it would have negative effect. No, the way to control this particular lack of procedure is to issue individual PPs - warnings and then fines. >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. Players don't need an excuse - they will not be familiar with complex rules anyway. They are human beings, and we should treat them as such. >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. This is wrong. The Laws are primarily to redress damage. However, there has to be a method of punishing players for not following procedure, otherwise players will not bother. That is what procedural penalties are for. I am surprised that you would wish to take punishment away - you complain enough about the poor treatment of giving information, and you actually want to make it worse? >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? Of course they can. It is a judgement to be made by SOs, TDs and ACs what irregularities need controlling by PPs. Practically any irregularity needs some threat in the background to keep it in check. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 1 10:27:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:27:48 +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 KAA12861 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:27:40 +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 SAA18370 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:27:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA17908 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:28:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:28:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911302328.SAA17908@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Most low-level reopening > redoubles are SOS for most players, and I don't think it is "at all > probable" that anyone would play this redouble as natural. I'd play it as natural, but maybe I'm crazy. The point is, it doesn't matter what you or I think, what matters is what this pair thinks. Given that they are college students, I'd bet a modest stake it's SOS, but there's no reason to guess. > We also need to know more about the play. If the defense was so bad that > it might be considered irrational, then perhaps North-West should keep the > table result. Yes, this is a good point. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 10:47:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:47:51 +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 KAA12915 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:47:43 +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 SAA20205 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:47:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA17930 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:48:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:48:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199911302348.SAA17930@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 > From: "David Burn" > I am quite sure that what actually happened, both in this case and the > earlier one, was this: the player made a genuine error with no > villainous intent (an insufficient bid in this case, a bid out of turn > in the other). ... > Now, there are those who would say that if that is the case, the Laws > permit the player to make his "unimaginable" bid following the > infraction because he did not know at the time of the infraction > itself that he would be in the position of being able to profit from > it subsequently. I do not think that this view is tenable - it is > precisely for this reason that the Laws do not require us to consider > what the player in fact knew, only what he could have known. I think > that this is the majority, if not the unanimous, view of this list as > a result of the earlier discussion. I hope it is unanimous. "Could have known" is what L23 and L72B1 say. > A player who corrects an illegal bid to an ostensibly natural bid of a > void could certainly have known that the Laws would enable him to do > so without being raised to a dangerous level by partner, ... > That which can be foreseen and which subsequently comes > to pass in the "normal" course of events cannot in my view be > described as other than "likely" within the context of L72. You seem to be making it into an infraction to bid a short suit after partner is barred. That doesn't seem right to me. Why shouldn't it be legal, if that's what a player wants to do? If that isn't what you are saying, then would you adjust the score any time there's an infraction barring partner and the OS end up with a good result? > The question that Steve raises above is not, in my view, the "proper" > question at all. One does not ask: is it more likely that a player > will cause damage to the non-offenders by committing an infraction and > then bidding a void than by bidding normally? One asks simply: is it > likely that a player will cause damage by following this course, > regardless of what his other options may have been? I think I'm equating "cause damage" with "receive a good score." It does seem to me that one has to compare one entire strategy (Rottweiler maneuver) with another (act normally). There's no point in repeating the argument. Perhaps others will comment. > In short, West's bid of 3D would show an ill-gotten > profit as long as the opponents did not pass it out, and it is > certainly "likely" in the legal sense that they would not. I'm basically with you on the analysis of this hand, although I would want an exact hand and conditions before coming to any definite conclusion. Partner doesn't have much to say, so there doesn't seem much to lose by barring him. However, I want to analyze the _sequence_ "bar partner, then bid 3D," not the 3D bid alone. On a different hand (e.g. the original RM), where partner's hand is undefined and unlimited, we will most likely come to different conclusions (as indeed we did in that case). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 10:49:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:49:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe44.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA12933 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:49:25 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 35739 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Nov 1999 23:48:44 -0000 Message-ID: <19991130234844.35738.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.161.138] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <199911301639.LAA17406@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901bf3b5e$ecb65480$5e068cd4@davidburn> Subject: Re: Law 23 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:48:37 -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: David Burn To: Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Law 23 > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: "David Burn" > > > 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. > > > > Obviously true but not the right question to be asking. > > > > _At the moment the insufficient bid (or other infraction) occurs_, a > > villain might consider two alternatives: 1) bid normally, or 2) silence > > partner and bid a void. The proper question is whether 2 might have > > been more attractive than 1. If partner's hand is undefined (and may > > well be strong or have support for one's suit), it surely tends to make > > > 2 less attractive. Of course the question is a matter of bridge > > judgment in each individual case. > I am quite sure that what actually happened, both in this case and the > earlier one, was this: the player made a genuine error with no > villainous intent (an insufficient bid in this case, a bid out of turn > in the other). When the consequences of this were pointed out, the > player realised that he was now in the delightful position of being > able to perpetrate a bid that he would not previously have > contemplated, because one of the major risks that would render it > unimaginable in normal circumstances had providentially been removed. > > Now, there are those who would say that if that is the case, the Laws > permit the player to make his "unimaginable" bid following the > infraction because he did not know at the time of the infraction > itself that he would be in the position of being able to profit from > it subsequently. Maybe a couple of years ago an appeal in an international event was heard where I recall that the conclusion reached mirrored the above. The typical conclusion drawn by discussion here was similar. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > I do not think that this view is tenable - it is > precisely for this reason that the Laws do not require us to consider > what the player in fact knew, only what he could have known. I think > that this is the majority, if not the unanimous, view of this list as > a result of the earlier discussion. > > A player who corrects an illegal bid to an ostensibly natural bid of a > void could certainly have known that the Laws would enable him to do > so without being raised to a dangerous level by partner, and (of > course) having the option to correct to his real suit when doubled > without the risk of being given preference to his void. It is my view > that since a player could know this, the Laws require a score > adjustment if a player in fact follows this course of action and > damage occurs to the non-offenders in a manner that was at least > foreseeable. That which can be foreseen and which subsequently comes > to pass in the "normal" course of events cannot in my view be > described as other than "likely" within the context of L72. > > The question that Steve raises above is not, in my view, the "proper" > question at all. One does not ask: is it more likely that a player > will cause damage to the non-offenders by committing an infraction and > then bidding a void than by bidding normally? One asks simply: is it > likely that a player will cause damage by following this course, > regardless of what his other options may have been? One imagines that > West's hand in the original case was such that he was not prepared to > bid 4H over an enemy bid of 3S (since he did not in fact do so), but > that he was at least prepared to contest to 3H (since that is what he > effectually did). In that case, West could have foreseen that a > diamond lead against 3S would be more profitable for his side than a > heart lead (since this was indeed likely); he could have known at the > time he bid 2H that this would enable him to request a diamond lead > against 3S without the risk of incurring a huge minus score in, say, > five hearts doubled; the score should be adjusted under L72 in > consequence. In short, West's bid of 3D would show an ill-gotten > profit as long as the opponents did not pass it out, and it is > certainly "likely" in the legal sense that they would not. > > David Burn > London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 11:00:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:00:24 +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 LAA12986 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:00:16 +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 TAA20951 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:00:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA17959 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:00:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:00:34 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912010000.TAA17959@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" [can you coerce your emailer to use standard ASCII, fixed width font, no tabs, and lines no longer than 72 characters?] > 1: What constitutes innocence in the L73F2-sense? I'd say having done nothing to cause the opponent's mannerism. For example, a player who plays unduly fast or slowly or varies his speed of play or makes a distracting remark at a critical moment would not be innocent. > 2: Do you consider this East innocent in the L73F2-sense? Nothing in the facts stated suggests otherwise. > 3: Do you think East is double shotting? No. > 4: If you decide to adjust using L12C2, do you deny East redress with > reference to L73D1 (last sentence) or this WBFLC decision from Lille: [wild, gambling, irrational] No. The finesse seems a perfectly reasonable play, hardly irrational. > 5: Assuming a L12C3-jurisdiction, what do you consider an equitable result? I'd vote for 12 tricks, but I wouldn't consider a weighted score 50% 11 tricks, 50% 12 ridiculous. I might be persuaded one way or another by further discussion or analysis. South was very unlucky to fumble at such a bad time, but his side is the one that has to suffer for it. The relevant law changed in 1997. Things would not have been so clear before then. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 11:48:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:48:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (IDENT:root@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13110 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:47:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22732; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 08:49:38 +0800 Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 08:49:38 +0800 Message-Id: <199912010049.IAA22732@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: gm@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199911301541.XAA21397@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> (message from root on Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:41:19 +0800) Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling References: <199911301541.XAA21397@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, this is B.Y. speaking ... sorry for screwing up, here I am again: > Auction: (NS vulnerable, no screens, collegiate KO teams final) > North East South West a: 15+ to 18 hcp > 1NT-a Dbl Pass 2H-b b: alerted, explained as transfer to S > Pass 2S Dbl Pass-c c: long hesitation (not disputed) > Pass Rdbl-d Pass 2NT-e d: long hesitation (not disputed) > Pass Pass Dbl [end] e: director called at this point. > > N-S mistimed the defense in 2NTx, leading to +500 instead of +800 (on > the lie of the cards), when 4S makes and was bid at the other table. I understand that the misdefense was not gross from what I heard. EW had no agreements on the redouble (as might be expected). This `NTHU Cup' had been one of the more prestigious collegiate events in Taiwan, but the eventual winners complained because they had been on the short end of a great many rulings over a long weekend; this one generated a lot of bad will because the winners considered the directors --- not students, but all from the City of Hsinchu where the Industrial Park (Taiwan's Silicon Valley), is located as is NTHU and NCTU, two of the nation's better universities--- to have been playing local favorites. The `ACBL national directors' were consulted by a friend in the States because he had been appalled at the ruling himself and decided to seek outside opinion, but getting a split result from two questions ... From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 12:11:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 12:11:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA13221 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 12:11:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba398295 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:10:25 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-96-133.tmns.net.au ([139.134.96.133]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Bien-MailRouter V2.6d 15/613529); 01 Dec 1999 11:10:24 Message-ID: <003c01bf3b98$b1eb0320$8560868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 12:09:18 +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 Flemming Bogh-Sorensen wrote: Perhaps you would like to share your opinion on this one, which has caused some debate in the Danish AC: Teams of four 2. division Dealer: W, Game: All J63 Q8 KQT8542 T AKQ7 T9 AT6 K432 AJ6 3 Q95 AJ8432 8542 J975 97 K76 S W N E 2N P 3C(1) (1) Asking P 3D(2) D 3S(3) (2) Promising 4-card major P 3N(4) P 4C (3) 4-card hearts P 4D(5) P 4H(5) (4) 4-card spades P 4S(5) P 4N(6) (5) cuebid P 5C(7) P 6C (6) RKCB 30-41 P P P (7) 0 or 3 aces The play: 1. Diamond to A 2. Club to K 3. Diamond, ruffed 4. Club 5. Club to 9 6. Diamond, ruffed (South discards Spade 2) 7. Spade 10 - (fumble) Spade 5 - Spade 7 - Spade J Result: 11 tricks. TD adjusted to 12 tricks. Please assume inadvertent fumble (L73D1). Questions: 1: What constitutes innocence in the L73F2-sense? 2: Do you consider this East innocent in the L73F2-sense? 3: Do you think East is double shotting? 4: If you decide to adjust using L12C2, do you deny East redress with reference to L73D1 (last sentence) or this WBFLC decision from Lille: "The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')" 5: Assuming a L12C3-jurisdiction, what do you consider an equitable result? My opinions: 1. The better qualified people can answer this one. 2. Yes. When South discards a spade with four spades visible in dummy, it is a routine assumption that South does not have four spades. East knows that South has eight major suit cards. He can be expected to discard from a five card suit if he has one. With 4-4, looking at that dummy, a heart discard is the only logical one. Therefore East expects South to have five spades even before the fumble. Running the ten of spades is reasonable; a squeeze is another possibility, but after the fumble running S10 becomes automatic. I have assumed Division 2 in Denmark would be play of a moderately high standard. 3. No. Certainly not. 4. No. Certainly not. 5. 1370 to EW. Minus 1370 for NS. Refund deposit, if any. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 13:49:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:49:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13547 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:49:46 +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 ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:49:27 -0800 Message-ID: <033501bf3ba6$b9f64e40$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199911302059.PAA17719@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Boston NABC Appeals Case 1 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:49:39 -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: "Marvin L. French" > > APPEALS CASE 1 > > Passing is illogical? I'll quote Kaplan again: > > > > "Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, > > absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus, the > > score should be adjusted...." > > While I tend to agree that passing is a LA in the ACBL, nobody seems to > have addressed "suggested over another." Is it obvious that the slow > double suggests pulling? As with all slow doubles, it suggests doubt about the double. The message to partner is, "I am not sure about this double, if you see an alternative please take it." > I would have thought the primary meaning of > double would be takeout or general values and the most likely > distribution 5431. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - Pass 1S Pass Pass 2C 2H 3C Pass Pass Dbl (1) Pass 3S All Pass (1) Break in tempo With 5=4=3=1 a takeout double would have come on the previous round, over 2C. This sequence suggests 5=4=2=2 or 5=4=1=3, with the primary meaning of penalty. > The hesitation suggests some other action was > considered, but we don't know whether it might have been to bid a suit > (even diamonds) or to pass. Doesn't matter what the doubler had in mind. He certainly does not have a 5=4=4=0 hand. The hesitation suggests exactly what he had, a doubtful double. West's 3S bid is the right call, but not opposite a "doubtful double," which requires that he pass unless that would be "obviously foolish" or a violation of system. To West (paraphrasing EK): If you are convinced that you would always bid 3S, huddle or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame partner. Let him act in tempo, next time. (Bridge World, November 1995). Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 13:59:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:59:50 +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 NAA13600 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:59:39 +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 ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:59:25 -0800 Message-ID: <035e01bf3ba8$1e721240$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <19991130221329.98915.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Bad score by MI, or what? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:59:22 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > PPfines, I agree, can create some arbitrariness problems - which is why > I am > hesitant to apply them except on overwhelming evidence, hyper-gratuitous > offensiveness, or history of offence (or, when I'm > being official ACBL-type person, when required by ZT reg. ZT regulations impose penalties under L91A, not L90. They are not PPs, they are disciplinary penalties. For once they got it right. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 14:19:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:19:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13771 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:19:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehfk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.244]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA07973 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:19:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991130221654.00763c2c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:16:54 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives In-Reply-To: <076901bf3ab2$b8316da0$1ede868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:42 AM 11/30/99 +1100, Peter wrote: >One of my friends points out to me that although pass is obviously >a Logical Alternative to 5D, for him that is not enough. If it were >enough, he says Law 16 would say "must not" rather than "may >not". His opinion is that pass is a LA but this hand falls into the >gap between "may not" and "must not" and 5D is thus acceptable. >I think he is entitled to that opinion. Certainly. And although you have no obligation to defend your friend's position, your presentation of it suggests a degree of sympathy. Tell your friend he is absolutely mistaken. There is no way to read the plain English of "may not" to suggest that it is somehow less obligatory then "must not". It _does not_ mean "oughtn't to" or "probably shouldn't". It means that to do so is a violation of the Law. Period. Which is not to offer an opinion one way or the other on the merits of the LA argument, but only to plug the mythical "gap" between "may not" and "must not". Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 14:51:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13661 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11t06R-0000pv-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:06:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:12:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C References: <01bf3a90$f379a340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <001301bf3ac3$e53d5960$55108cd4@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001301bf3ac3$e53d5960$55108cd4@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >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. I think you refer to what I wrote. I expect a player to know the approach for what do about UI - ie, to follow L73C - but not the detail of how we go about deciding it - which is given by L16A. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 1 15:51:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:43 +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 OAA13670 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:16 +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 11t06U-000FwD-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:06:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 00:01:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 25B twice 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: >Herman De Wael wrote: > >>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. > >This looks strange to me. Why would a player in 3NT play >for 8 tricks when he has a safety play for 10 tricks? I think you may safely assume he has a safety play for eight tricks which happens to result in ten tricks. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 1 15:53:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:53:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA14027 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:53:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca404146 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:52:20 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-224-172.tmns.net.au ([139.134.224.172]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Committed-MailRouter V2.6d 15/670606); 01 Dec 1999 14:52:18 Message-ID: <002101bf3bb7$b15a43c0$ace0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Controversial Ruling Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:51:12 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01BF3C13.E43CD3A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01BF3C13.E43CD3A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable B.Y. of Taiwan wrote: > >> Auction: (NS vulnerable, no screens, collegiate KO teams final) >> North East South West a: 15+ to 18 hcp >> 1NT-a Dbl Pass 2H-b b: alerted, explained as = transfer to S >> Pass 2S Dbl Pass-c c: long hesitation (not = disputed) >> Pass Rdbl-d Pass 2NT-e d: long hesitation (not = disputed) >> Pass Pass Dbl [end] e: director called at this = point. >> >> N-S mistimed the defense in 2NTx, leading to +500 instead of +800 (on >> the lie of the cards), when 4S makes and was bid at the other table. > >I understand that the misdefense was not gross from what I heard. EW >had no agreements on the redouble (as might be expected). This `NTHU >Cup' had been one of the more prestigious collegiate events in Taiwan, >but the eventual winners complained because they had been on the short >end of a great many rulings over a long weekend; this one generated a >lot of bad will because the winners considered the directors --- not >students, but all from the City of Hsinchu........ > >The `ACBL national directors' were consulted by a friend in the States >because he had been appalled at the ruling himself and decided to seek >outside opinion, but getting a split result from two questions ... I add that B.Y. submitted this ruling to rgb on 22 November with a comment about how to access BLML. In his rgb reply, Julian Lighton supplied the information about access to BLML. So BLML is at last getting some input from South East Asia, as was hoped for a couple of months ago. The ruling may seem well below par to all of you, and has received=20 the same uniform negative comments on rgb, but such rulings are not uncommon to those of us outside Zones 1 and 2. The high expectations on BLML at times seem almost unworldly to some of us. Kojak sometimes provides *reality checks*; in this case that's what I'm trying to do. The difficulty which people outside the two main Zones have in obtaining good guidance is demonstrated by the consultation in this case to the ACBL TDs. I sometimes wonder if the bridge world will become a better place when there is an officially-recognised readily-available online = place for such requests to be sent. In this way, our education will be = improved. Those who respond that that's part of what BLML is, have totally missed my point, which is that it is very rare indeed for BLML to receive a ruling problem from the less educated (ruling-wise) parts of the world. Yes, New Zealand is an exception, but their TDs in my experience are well-educated (ruling-wise). Apologies to any Americans who find the next paragraph unintelligible. Its point is that other sports are changing their umpiring methods to incorporate new technology. Admittedly they are under greater public pressure than bridge to do so. Rugby Union is bringing in video umpires in its Super Twelve Competition next year. Rugby League recently introduced video umpires. Cricket has introduced third, or video, umpires. The data on LBW decisions in Australia prior to the introduction of neutral umpires (i.e. not from one of the two competing countries) suggest appalling bias in favour of the home team. I would expect that bridge, where instant rulings are less important than at these other sports, is better placed to go with the times by providing some form of assistance to the "on the spot" referee. I would rule 2SX down four or five, whichever is appropriate. I suppose it is even possible that the offenders receive 2SX -5, and the non non-offenders receive 2SX -4, with the score being averaged because it is a knockout match. It is quite clear that the 2S bid is not = permitted. Whether the 2NT bid is permitted is less clear. Having directed some collegiate events myself, it is most unlikely that the card play was irrational, because in such bridge games, the thinking processes of the players do not necessarily follow the patterns which = are common amongst older bridge players in the Western world. So IMO the definition of "irrational" in youth events can be slightly different from that which BLML is used to. To give one example, in an Australian Interschool bridge competition, dummy holds Q2 and you hold K3. Declarer leads the queen. Not covering with the king is fairly commonplace and certainly not irrational in this setting, due mainly to lack of bridge education. The same tendencies, whilst not as dramatic, apply to university bridge. Peter Gill Youth Bridge Organiser Sydney Australia. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01BF3C13.E43CD3A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
B.Y. of Taiwan wrote:
>
>> Auction: (NS vulnerable, = no=20 screens, collegiate KO teams final)
>> North  =20 East    South  =20 West         a: 15+ to 18=20 hcp
>> 1NT-a   Dbl    =20 Pass     = 2H-b        b:=20 alerted, explained as transfer to
S
>> = Pass    =20 2S     Dbl    =20 Pass-c       c: long hesitation (not=20 disputed)
>> Pass    Rdbl-d  = Pass   =20 2NT-e        d: long hesitation (not=20 disputed)
>> Pass    Pass    Dbl=20 [end]            = e:=20 director called at this point.
>>
>> N-S mistimed the = defense=20 in 2NTx, leading to +500 instead of +800 (on
>> the lie of the = cards),=20 when 4S makes and was bid at the other table.
>
>I = understand that=20 the misdefense was not gross from what I heard.  EW
>had no=20 agreements on the redouble (as might be expected).  This = `NTHU
>Cup'=20 had been one of the more prestigious collegiate events in = Taiwan,
>but the=20 eventual winners complained because they had been on the = short
>end of a=20 great many rulings over a long weekend; this one generated a
>lot = of bad=20 will because the winners considered the directors --- = not
>students, but=20 all from the City of Hsinchu........
>
>The `ACBL national=20 directors' were consulted by a friend in the States
>because he = had been=20 appalled at the ruling himself and decided to seek
>outside = opinion, but=20 getting a split result from two questions ...

I add that B.Y. = submitted=20 this ruling to rgb on 22 November with
a comment about how to access BLML. In his rgb reply, Julian
Lighton supplied the information about access to BLML.

So = BLML is at=20 last getting some input from South East Asia, as
was hoped for a couple of months ago.

The ruling may seem = well below=20 par to all of you, and has received
the same uniform negative comments on rgb, but such rulings are=20 not
uncommon to those of us outside Zones 1 and 2. The high=20 expectations
on BLML at times seem almost unworldly to some of us. = Kojak=20 sometimes
provides *reality checks*; in this case that's what I'm = trying to=20 do.

The difficulty which people outside the two main Zones have = in=20 obtaining
good guidance is demonstrated by the consultation in this = case to=20 the
ACBL TDs. I sometimes wonder if the bridge world will become a=20 better
place when there is an officially-recognised readily-available = online=20 place
for such requests to be sent. In this way, our education will = be=20 improved.

Those who respond that that's part of what BLML is, = have=20 totally missed
my point, which is that it is very rare indeed for = BLML to=20 receive a
ruling problem from the less educated (ruling-wise) parts = of the=20 world.
Yes, New Zealand is an exception, but their TDs in my=20 experience
are well-educated (ruling-wise).

Apologies to any = Americans=20 who find the next paragraph
unintelligible. Its point is that other = sports=20 are changing their
umpiring methods to incorporate new technology.=20 Admittedly
they are under greater public pressure than bridge to do=20 so.

Rugby Union is bringing in video umpires in its Super=20 Twelve
Competition next year. Rugby League recently introduced=20 video
umpires. Cricket has introduced third, or video, umpires. = The
data=20 on LBW decisions in Australia prior to the introduction of
neutral = umpires=20 (i.e. not from one of the two competing countries)
suggest appalling = bias in=20 favour of the home team. I would expect
that bridge, where instant = rulings=20 are less important than at these
other sports, is better placed to go = with=20 the times by providing
some form of assistance to the "on the = spot"=20 referee.


I would rule 2SX  down four or five, whichever = is=20 appropriate. I suppose
it is even possible that the offenders receive = 2SX -5,=20 and the non
non-offenders receive 2SX -4, with the score being = averaged=20 because
it is a knockout match. It is quite clear that the 2S bid is = not=20 permitted.
Whether the 2NT bid is permitted is less = clear.

Having=20 directed some collegiate events myself, it is most unlikely that
the = card=20 play was irrational, because in such bridge games, the = thinking
processes of=20 the players do not necessarily follow the patterns which are
common = amongst=20 older bridge players in the Western world. So IMO
the definition of=20 "irrational" in youth events can be slightly different
from = that=20 which BLML is used to.

To give one example, in an Australian = Interschool=20 bridge competition,
dummy holds Q2 and you hold K3. Declarer leads = the=20 queen.
Not covering with the king is fairly commonplace and certainly = not
irrational in this setting, due mainly to lack of bridge = education.=20 The
same tendencies, whilst not as dramatic, apply to university=20 bridge.

Peter Gill
Youth Bridge Organiser
Sydney=20 Australia.
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01BF3C13.E43CD3A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 16:59:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:43 +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 OAA13662 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:15 +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 11t06T-0000pn-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:06:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 00:00:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 25B twice References: <05d001bf3aab$b9d7a7c0$1ede868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <05d001bf3aab$b9d7a7c0$1ede868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >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. Try the effect of giving both teams A- on a board! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 1 17:31:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:34 +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 OAA13657 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:11 +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 11t06M-000FwD-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:06:44 +0000 Message-ID: <8U7PiPAQ7FR4Ewnx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:33:36 +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> <38426523.36F58481@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38426523.36F58481@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: >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 ? No, but the one you are quoting now does not include the word "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 Wed Dec 1 17:38:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:43 +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 OAA13663 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:15 +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 11t06R-0000pl-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:06:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:47:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 23 References: <199911292351.SAA16893@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199911292351.SAA16893@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >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. Not in my view. If you had a little method to silence partner *every* time you bid first on a 2-count would you not use it - and get the odd bad board when he has 23+HCP? I would. ------ Steve Willner wrote: >_At the moment the insufficient bid (or other infraction) occurs_, a >villain might consider two alternatives: 1) bid normally, or 2) silence >partner and bid a void. The proper question is whether 2 might have >been more attractive than 1. If partner's hand is undefined (and may >well be strong or have support for one's suit), it surely tends to make >2 less attractive. It sounds good when you put it that way, but if you include one other fact it would be a fairer test. If partner's hand is undefined, but to compensate you have only 2HCP, then ..... I have only ever suggested that the original Rottweiler manoeuvre came under L72B1 because of its point count. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 17:43:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 17:43:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14354 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 17:42:55 +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 ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:42:44 -0800 Message-ID: <03a501bf3bc7$4f04ab60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991130221654.00763c2c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:34:38 -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: > At 08:42 AM 11/30/99 +1100, Peter 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. > > Certainly. And although you have no obligation to defend your friend's > position, your presentation of it suggests a degree of sympathy. > > Tell your friend he is absolutely mistaken. There is no way to read the > plain English of "may not" to suggest that it is somehow less obligatory > then "must not". It _does not_ mean "oughtn't to" or "probably shouldn't". > It means that to do so is a violation of the Law. Period. > > Which is not to offer an opinion one way or the other on the merits of the > LA argument, but only to plug the mythical "gap" between "may not" and > "must not". > The gap is better described as minuscule rather than mythical. The Preface to the Laws says: "Note that 'may' becomes very strong in the negative: 'may not' is a stronger injunction than 'shall not', just short of 'must not.'" The difference pertains to the seriousness of an infraction, not to its permissivity (is that a word?). It is of importantce only from a C&E standpoint. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 17:51:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:33 +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 OAA13656 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:11 +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 11t06M-0000pn-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:06:45 +0000 Message-ID: <+UQPSRA8+FR4EwGH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:37:32 +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> <19991129134334.38976.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19991129134334.38976.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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. I think your argument lacks substance. Apart from the fact that some people like myself deny by by-passing - so not to bid 5C denies singleton ace - I think your argument far too complex, and when we reduce it to its bare essentials, there is no such hand as you describe. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 1 18:35:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:46 +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 OAA13666 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:15 +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 11t06U-0000pm-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:06:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 00:18:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 25B twice References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A9@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: >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). Thus, the TD has made an error. L82C now applies. >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? Unless the Dutch have a regulation covering this similar to Lille that you may not withdraw an appeal why are we not consigning this appeal to the deep? Anyway, let us go through the motions. The player had a right under L25B to play in 3NT and the TD did not allow it. If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. If he had given the correct ruling, then he would have bid 3NT. Let us see: how do we actually do the adjustment: we look at L12C2 [not L12C1 because there was a result at the table: 3, 3 is not a legal consequence of L82C]. When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred ....... We ignore the rest of the sentence because we are treating both sides as non-offending. The irregularity is the TD's wrong ruling: without it the player would have bid 3NT, playing for A-, and made 8 or 10 tricks. since both sides are now non-offending we give each side the benefit. So declarer makes 10 tricks to get -3 imps, the most he is allowed, defenders beat 3NT by one to get a flat board, and we apply L86B to get a nett score of -1.5 imps to declarer. Since he is getting +7 imps without the appeal I suggest we keep his money and tell the appeal was frivolous! :)))))) An alternative way of looking at it is to say he *might* have changed his call to 3NT [saying he would is oppo-serving!]. Then you could argue that his best score would be +7 imps [as he got] and the opponents a flat board [from him bidding 3NT and going off]. That gives him +3.5 imps and starts to feel a bit fairer. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 1 18:51:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:44 +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 OAA13658 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:14 +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 11t06M-0000pm-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:06:45 +0000 Message-ID: <$0BPKJA65FR4EwkC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:32:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be> <001d01bf3314$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> <38426371.5BEA3A06@village.uunet.be> <025701bf3aaf$531a8d00$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <025701bf3aaf$531a8d00$6a30d2cc@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: >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." Perhaps you should go back and read Herman's article again. He ruled there was no MI because he considered there was convincing evidence. >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." You are getting more than just irritating now. You are [a] a person who has a good knowledge of the English language, and thus can understand the word "primarily" even though you regularly ignore it. This means, as though you did not know, that the majority of the Laws are not penal - but some are. You are [b] someone who will complain at the drop of a hat about your opponents' lack of following CC regs, and yet you want to get rid of PPs, the one way that you can control them. Ah no, perhaps I have it wrong, you want to get rid of some PPs because they do not restore equity, but keep others, which also do not restore equity, because you believe them to be different. It is quite clear from some of your writing that you are highly intelligent. Time to drop the arguments that you know are wrong and at the moment you merely use them as your own version of the Chinese Water Torture. >aka Cato Cato? You were in the Pink Panther? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 1 18:53:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:44 +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 OAA13659 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:14 +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 11t06M-0000pl-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 03:06:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:20:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C References: <01bf3a92$b6ceb6e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf3a92$b6ceb6e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: 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? Oh, I doubt it. Perhaps a better rendition would be: The director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if a player believes there is even the faintest chance he has been damaged and the Director considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. After all, while more recently an example has crept in where a player says "He has his bid" where I believe we would all continue to investigate, since we know this is not the criterion, it is the original case I am looking at. You are called, the players say there has been a hesitation, you agree, wander off. If you return they will say something like "It was irrelevant". Now, in such cases, I do not investigate further. I do not believe my main job is to alienate customers - and I think it will be very hard not to do so. Another thing you are going to do by this method: you are going to reduce the number of correct rulings, because fewer people will reserve rights. Once they know they are going to be subjected to a searching examination even when neither side wants one, they are not going to call you in the first place. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 1 18:54:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:54:45 +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 SAA14575 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:54:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.164] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11t4ap-000NJr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 07:54:27 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01bf3bd1$421f1480$a45208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 07:53:37 -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 December 1999 04:55 Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives >At 08:42 AM 11/30/99 +1100, Peter 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". >>................... \x/ ........................ >Tell your friend he is absolutely mistaken. There is no way to read the >plain English of "may not" to suggest that it is somehow less obligatory >then "must not". It _does not_ mean "oughtn't to" or "probably shouldn't". >It means that to do so is a violation of the Law. Period. > +=+ In my view 'may not' is used for those things you must not do, 'must not' is used for those things which you must not do and doubly so. Neither leaves any scope for the action; but then, neither does 'shall not'. The difference is understood to lie in the speed with which a penalty will be awarded, not in the requirement for rectification. ~Grattan~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 20:57:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 20:57:53 +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 UAA14812 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 20:57:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:57:22 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA10093 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:41:47 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: 25B twice Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:36:14 +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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >> From: "Martin Sinot" >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >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. >> >> This looks strange to me. Why would a player in 3NT play >> for 8 tricks when he has a safety play for 10 tricks? > >Martin > >I imagine Herman meant "In 2NT you have a safety play for 8 >tricks, which as the cards lie always results in 10 tricks." > >e.g. in 2NT you cash SA from AQJ for 8 tricks, making 10 as >the SK is singleton; in 3NT you finesse SQ, going off. > >Robin I know he must have meant that; it just looked very funny to me :-) Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 21:24:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:24:56 +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 VAA14883 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:24:47 +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 LAA23912 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:24:07 +0100 Message-ID: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 11:23:14 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last week I played in Swiss Pairs. At Game All I opened 1NT (weak, 13-15PC). My LHO passed and partner responded 2S - natural, sign off. Now, Poland doesn't have any special alert regulations like ACBL. So the only regulation remains the definition of an alert in TFLB. There are two kinds of problems: 1) bids that can have two different popular meanings: 2C opening is an example; it is still popular as ART GF and many players use it as a Precision opening 2) bids that are conventional and the conventional meaning is a lot more popular than the natural one; e.g. JTB. I personally don't alert JTB and do alert natural responses to 1NT. So I did alert my partner's 2S. W(me) N E S 1NT p 2S ? 1NT was alerted and explained accordingly. In Poland the 2S response to the _strong_ 1NT opening in 99% shows either clubs or is two-way: INV with no 4-card major or is a transfer to clubs. Anyway is doesn't say anything specific about spades and therefore many players still alert it. This 1NT opening was weak but South nevertheless assumed the usual meaning of 2S response and doubled with a bunch of spades without asking about the meaning. His partner passed and we got a cold bottom. Had South asked about the meaning he would have realized that his double would be for T/O. Now it would have been a lot harder for NS to catch us. We didn't call the Director. Should we? Comments are welcome. However, pls don't elaborate on the issue: "Ya see, that's why you gotta have alert regulations just like we in ACBL do". :) Just try to make a ruling only with the Law Book in your hand. Would we have a chance? -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Dec 1 21:44:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:44:45 +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 VAA14943 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:37:52 +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 KAA00096; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:37:04 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA08305; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:37:03 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 01 Dec 1999 10:37:03 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 KAA16400; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:37:02 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA04271; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:37:01 GMT Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:37:01 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199912011037.KAA04271@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, gester@globalnet.co.uk Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > >(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. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree in principle that those consulted (the consultants) should give their opinion as to what the peers of a player would do. This is fine if the peers are not as good as the consultant. It is harder for a consultant if he is not as good as the peers. In short: if I knew what a good player would bid on a given hand then I would be a good player. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 21:58:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:58:45 +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 VAA14991 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:58:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA04884 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:57:59 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:57 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <199911301658.QAA04136@tempest.npl.co.uk> Robin Barker wrote: > > > Auction: (NS vulnerable, no screens, collegiate KO teams final) > > North East South West a: 15+ to 18 hcp > > 1NT-a Dbl Pass 2H-b b: alerted, explained as > > transfer to S > > Pass 2S Dbl Pass-c c: long hesitation (not disputed) > > Pass Rdbl-d Pass 2NT-e d: long hesitation (not disputed) > > Pass Pass Dbl [end] e: director called at this point. > > > > N-S mistimed the defense in 2NTx, leading to +500 instead of +800 (on > > the lie of the cards), when 4S makes and was bid at the other table. > > > > [1] Your opinions based just on the auction? > > c => West has hearts, so alert and explanation at (b) is UI; > there may be no LA to pass here. Hesitation suggests not spades. > > d => Appears to be a serious infraction (unless he thought XX was to > > play > _and_ West would leave it in, which I doubt); pass is surely a LA. > Hesitation suggests 2SX is not good, however XX may not improve > the situation ("jumping from the frying pan into the fire")! > > e => Pass is surely a LA here. I don't believe a redouble in this situation can ever be anything but "Help" some sort of 5-0-4-4 in desperation maybe. Certainly a deeply ingrained "meta-rule" of mine is - Never play a redoubled contract if there is any doubt in your mind whatsoever. Only a complete idiot would redouble with eight tricks in spades and limited defence against 3m. I can't see anything other than 2Sx-5 as justified. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 1 23:24:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 23:24:56 +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 XAA15223 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 23:24:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:24:26 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA18007 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:27:30 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:21:54 +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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Last week I played in Swiss Pairs. At Game All I opened 1NT >(weak, 13-15PC). My LHO passed and partner responded 2S - natural, >sign off. > Now, Poland doesn't have any special alert regulations like >ACBL. So the only regulation remains the definition of an alert in >TFLB. There are two kinds of problems: >1) bids that can have two different popular meanings: 2C opening > is an example; it is still popular as ART GF and many players > use it as a Precision opening >2) bids that are conventional and the conventional meaning is a lot > more popular than the natural one; e.g. JTB. > > I personally don't alert JTB and do alert natural responses >to 1NT. So I did alert my partner's 2S. > >W(me) N E S >1NT p 2S ? > > > 1NT was alerted and explained accordingly. In Poland >the 2S response to the _strong_ 1NT opening in 99% shows either clubs >or is two-way: INV with no 4-card major or is a transfer to clubs. >Anyway is doesn't say anything specific about spades and therefore >many players still alert it. This 1NT opening was weak but South >nevertheless assumed the usual meaning of 2S response >and doubled with a bunch of spades without asking about the meaning. > His partner passed and we got a cold bottom. Had South asked >about the meaning he would have realized that his double would be >for T/O. Now it would have been a lot harder for NS to catch us. > We didn't call the Director. Should we? > Comments are welcome. However, pls don't elaborate on the >issue: "Ya see, that's why you gotta have alert regulations just like >we in ACBL do". :) Just try to make a ruling only with the Law Book >in your hand. Would we have a chance? The TD can do nothing whatsoever. I don't see any offence at all. It is not forbidden not to ask about opponents' bids, and if South and North choose to interpret the 2S-bid wrongly as one of the more common possibilities, that is their business. Sleeping is not forbidden, and on this deal, it brought in a big score by accident. Next time, they don't double for information while they should, and thus miss an icy cold 4H. We in the Netherlands do have alert regulations. However, that would not have helped in this case. According to these regulations, the 2S must be alerted in the more common meanings, for it is a convention. But your 2S must also be alerted, since the natural meaning is apparently highly uncommon. So 2S must always be alerted, and South will still make the same lucky mistake. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 00:23:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:23:03 +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 AAA15402 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:22:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-175.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.175]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA09185 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:22:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384517BF.D479DED4@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 13:42:39 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >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. > > This looks strange to me. Why would a player in 3NT play > for 8 tricks when he has a safety play for 10 tricks? > Sorry if I don't make myself understood. One line leads to a certain 8 tricks - but when you follow it, you score ten. The other line could lead to seven or more, and when you follow it, you happen to get eight. So the player in 2NT scores 10 tricks, while the one in 3NT scores 8 or 10. I was only trying to introduce something which made that the player having scored 10 tricks might not get the same if he were considered playing in 3NT. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 00:23:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:23:10 +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 AAA15408 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:23:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-175.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.175]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA09169 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:22:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38450757.CA2A2794@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 12:32:39 +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> <38426523.36F58481@village.uunet.be> <8U7PiPAQ7FR4Ewnx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > No, but the one you are quoting now does not include the word "proof". > Indeed "evidence", not "proof". I stand corrected. Sorry once again for my poor choice of words. Perhaps it is because dutch has no real different words for proof and evidence. "Bewijs" can be used for both. The Dutch version of the Laws uses the word "Bewijs", which I simply translate to proof, although "Bewijsstuk" would be better for evidence. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 01:08:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 01:08:30 +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 BAA15619 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 01:08:18 +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 OAA23740 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:07:35 GMT Message-ID: <38452BA9.F048160C@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 15:07:37 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: BLML Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski a écrit : > > > Last week I played in Swiss Pairs. At Game All I opened 1NT > (weak, 13-15PC). My LHO passed and partner responded 2S - natural, > sign off. > Now, Poland doesn't have any special alert regulations like > ACBL. So the only regulation remains the definition of an alert in > TFLB. There are two kinds of problems: > 1) bids that can have two different popular meanings: 2C opening > is an example; it is still popular as ART GF and many players > use it as a Precision opening > 2) bids that are conventional and the conventional meaning is a lot > more popular than the natural one; e.g. JTB. > > I personally don't alert JTB and do alert natural responses > to 1NT. So I did alert my partner's 2S. > > W(me) N E S > 1NT p 2S ? > > 1NT was alerted and explained accordingly. In Poland > the 2S response to the _strong_ 1NT opening in 99% shows either clubs > or is two-way: INV with no 4-card major or is a transfer to clubs. > Anyway is doesn't say anything specific about spades and therefore > many players still alert it. This 1NT opening was weak but South > nevertheless assumed the usual meaning of 2S response > and doubled with a bunch of spades without asking about the meaning. > His partner passed and we got a cold bottom. Had South asked > about the meaning he would have realized that his double would be > for T/O. Now it would have been a lot harder for NS to catch us. > We didn't call the Director. Should we? > Comments are welcome. However, pls don't elaborate on the > issue: "Ya see, that's why you gotta have alert regulations just like > we in ACBL do". :) Just try to make a ruling only with the Law Book > in your hand. Would we have a chance? > 2 points to examine: - Were NS properly alerted to the meaning of 2S? it may depend upon alert regulations but I tend to answer yes. I think South was very negligent (or worse?) to act over a 2S bid, the meaning of which he could not know for sure and he didn't care to know. - NS's infractions: the 2S bid was a natural bid by agreement and nobody can dispute this. South's double of 2S was, by agreement a take-out double of spades, even if South, mistakenly, intended another meaning. North commited an infraction (L16) when passing a take-out double, using UI (he illegally knew his partner had not inquired about the meaning of 2S and could infer his double did not conform to their agreement). Adjustment needed on the base of North's most logical alternative to pass, in response to the take-out double of 2S. This is not so uncommon an infraction, using multi-meaning bids as a defense against artificial opponent bids: I use to play a system in which the 1C opening means "spades"; when LHO holds 4441 distribution, he doubles without asking and when he holds 1444, he may also make a take-out double, once he has asked! Fortunately the Laws protect the game against this form of behaviour. JP Rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 02:01:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:53:56 +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 AAA15516 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:53:47 +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 IAA09207 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 08:53:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991201085523.007234c4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 08:55:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L25 again In-Reply-To: <19991130222429.46937.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:24 PM 11/30/99 GMT, Michael wrote: >>From: Ed Reppert >> >> >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. :-) >> >IIRC, his mind was on the last hand. It may not have been connected >to his hands, but it was thinking. > >>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. >> >Yep. And a good thing that is, my friend. L74B1. If they're thinking >about dinner when they're supposed to be bidding, they're violating the >proprieties and harming their opponents (by delaying the game, if for no >other reason); I see no reason to be lenient on them. > >Frankly, IMHO, anything that minimizes at-the-table post-mortems (at least >when there's still a board to play, but I could be argued into even after) >is a good thing. > >So, if you make a call, and when you think about it (even if it was the >first time you thought about it) you want to change it, L25B. I agree completely. L25A is about slips of the tongue and mechanical bid box errors. It applies when a player is thinking "call X" but "call Y" comes out of his mouth or bid box. If he is thinking about the last hand, or what he plans for dinner, or nothing at all, that is not the same as thinking "call X", and L25A does not apply. 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 Dec 2 02:20:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA15959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:20:50 +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 CAA15953 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:20:42 +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 KAA03141 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:20:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA18484 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:21:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:21:01 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912011521.KAA18484@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 > From: David Stevenson > If you had a little method to silence partner *every* time you bid > first on a 2-count would you not use it - and get the odd bad board when > he has 23+HCP? I would. On a _flat_ 2-count, yes, of course. On a 2-count with a long suit, which I could show preemptively, no way. We might have a paying sacrifice, or even a make, and why shouldn't the opponents bid as well over my "psych" of the short suit as over a natural bid at a higher level in the long suit? Certainly silencing partner _may_ work in a variety of ways, but I don't think that's the way to bet. Of course all the above is a question of bridge judgment, not of law. All the evidence suggests David's bridge judgment is superior to mine, so perhaps he is right. If so, we should adjust any time a player with a 2-count makes an insufficient bid, silences partner, and that leads to a good result. > I have only ever suggested that the original Rottweiler manoeuvre came > under L72B1 because of its point count. Then we disagree on the bridge judgment but not on the law. Fair enough. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 02:50:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:50:23 +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 CAA16036 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:50:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from p38s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.57] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11tC0o-0004Ey-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 07:49:46 -0800 Message-ID: <000701bf3c13$7e629ba0$398493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: MI? - yes I think so Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:26:21 -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: 01 December 1999 06:51 Subject: Re: MI? - yes I think so >Herman De Wael wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >> >>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 ? > > No, but the one you are quoting now does not include the word "proof". > +=+ When the footnote was written the rush of blood to the internet was not foreseen; even if some divine intervention had revealed what was to happen it is not necessarily the case that the ensuing development of the art of nit-picking by email amongst the words of the law-book would have been anticipated. The fact of the matter is that the game is governed today according to the intention of the laws as they were written, not according to the pedantry of sophists looking for problems in the choice of language. 'Evidence' intended collaborative matter other than the assertion of the side whose action is under scrutiny; the degree of 'proof' required is such as to convince the Director who is required 'to administer and interpret' the laws - on the hoof whilst managing the tournament. At the end of the day the 'power to do' vested by the laws in the Director is the determining factor. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 02:51:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:51:05 +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 CAA16059 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:50:58 +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 KAA04412 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:50:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA18535 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:51:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:51:21 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912011551.KAA18535@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 > From: David Stevenson > If you had a little method to silence partner *every* time you bid > first on a 2-count would you not use it - and get the odd bad board when > he has 23+HCP? I just want to add that the above seems to me a perfect statement of the relevant legal question. Given the player's hand and the conditions, would he wish to silence partner if he could do so? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 02:51:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 01:00:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA15587 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 01:00:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va417919 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 23:57:32 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-95-89.tmns.net.au ([139.134.95.89]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Eclectic-MailRouter V2.6e 15/1515); 01 Dec 1999 23:57:31 Message-ID: <019e01bf3c03$dbc432a0$65dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:56:25 +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 Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Last week I played in Swiss Pairs. At Game All I opened 1NT >(weak, 13-15PC). My LHO passed and partner responded 2S - natural, >sign off. > Now, Poland doesn't have any special alert regulations like >ACBL. So the only regulation remains the definition of an alert in >TFLB. There are two kinds of problems: >1) bids that can have two different popular meanings: 2C opening > is an example; it is still popular as ART GF and many players > use it as a Precision opening >2) bids that are conventional and the conventional meaning is a lot > more popular than the natural one; e.g. JTB. > > I personally don't alert JTB and do alert natural responses >to 1NT. So I did alert my partner's 2S. > >W(me) N E S >1NT p 2S ? > > 1NT was alerted and explained accordingly. In Poland >the 2S response to the _strong_ 1NT opening in 99% shows either clubs >or is two-way: INV with no 4-card major or is a transfer to clubs. >Anyway is doesn't say anything specific about spades and therefore >many players still alert it. This 1NT opening was weak but South >nevertheless assumed the usual meaning of 2S response >and doubled with a bunch of spades without asking about the meaning. > His partner passed and we got a cold bottom. Had South asked >about the meaning he would have realized that his double would be >for T/O. Now it would have been a lot harder for NS to catch us. > We didn't call the Director. Should we? > Comments are welcome. However, pls don't elaborate on the >issue: "Ya see, that's why you gotta have alert regulations just like >we in ACBL do". :) Just try to make a ruling only with the Law Book >in your hand. Would we have a chance? Your only chance is the Director in the thread *A Controversial Ruling*. Otherwise no chance. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 02:55:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:55:34 +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 CAA16092 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:55:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from p38s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.57] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11tC0p-0004Ey-00; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 07:49:47 -0800 Message-ID: <000801bf3c13$7f246500$398493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:26:55 -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 Mailing List Date: 01 December 1999 01:39 Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? >Flemming Bogh-Sorensen wrote: >Perhaps you would like to share your opinion on this one, which has caused >some debate in the Danish AC: > >Teams of four >2. division >Dealer: W, Game: All > J63 > Q8 > KQT8542 > T >AKQ7 T9 >AT6 K432 >AJ6 3 >Q95 AJ8432 > 8542 > J975 > 97 > K76 > >The play: >6. Diamond, ruffed (South discards Spade 2) >7. Spade 10 - (fumble) Spade 5 - Spade 7 - Spade J > >Result: 11 tricks. TD adjusted to 12 tricks. > >Please assume inadvertent fumble (L73D1). > >Questions: > >1: What constitutes innocence in the L73F2-sense? > +=+ of bridge players, not that they are 'pure', 'guileless' or 'simple-minded'; so I take it to mean 'not legally guilty' or 'not to blame'. +=+ > >2: Do you consider this East innocent in the L73F2-sense? >3: Do you think East is double shotting? > +=+ I consider that Law 72B1 applies; if South had perceived that he would be squeezed in the majors he would wish East to lose a trick to North; to let go a Spade and then fumble over the ten would be a 'clever' way of giving himself that chance. So whilst I do not for a moment accuse, I do apply the relevant law. +=+ >4: If you decide to adjust using L12C2, do you deny East redress with >reference to L73D1 (last sentence) or this WBFLC decision from Lille: >"The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending >side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent >action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling >(which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double >shot')" > +=+ I consider East has done nothing irrational, wild or gambling, given the situation he is in. +=+ > >5: Assuming a L12C3-jurisdiction, what do you consider an equitable result? > +=+ The percentage chances that East would run the ten or put up a card in dummy and play for the squeeze, South having let a Spade go. Let the AC exercise its powers of assessment. I note that North apparently did not help his partner by also discarding a Spade. [The 12C3 Law is apposite to those situations when action must be cancelled but the outcome is then fluid because the player would have options as to his action; 12C2 is not IMO equitable in these circumstances.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 03:58:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 03:58:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA16411 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 03:57:52 +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; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 08:57:42 -0800 Message-ID: <03ae01bf3c1d$3461b540$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , References: <01bf3a90$f379a340$LocalHost@vnmvhhid><001301bf3ac3$e53d5960$55108cd4@davidburn> Subject: Re: 81C6 & 64C Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 08:52:29 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > >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. > > I think you refer to what I wrote. I expect a player to know the > approach for what do about UI - ie, to follow L73C - but not the detail > of how we go about deciding it - which is given by L16A. > L73C. When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner,...he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. Players, informed of (or knowing) this law think they are obeying the Laws when they make a call that they believe they would have made absent the UI. TDs hereabouts (California) reinforce this erroneous concept by saying to a player, "You must bid as you normally would if partner had not hesitated." If a player does this, he is in danger of being penalized per L16A when the case goes to an AC. The correct instruction covers both L73C and L16A: "You may not make a call that is suggested by partner's hesitation if there is some other call that makes sense." I think players can understand that. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 04:03:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 03:25:06 +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 DAA16227 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 03:24:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 17:24:32 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA20316 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 17:11:47 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 17:06:04 +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: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: >- Were NS properly alerted to the meaning of 2S? it may depend upon >alert regulations but I tend to answer yes. I think South was very >negligent (or worse?) to act over a 2S bid, the meaning of which he >could not know for sure and he didn't care to know. I think NS were not properly alerted, but this is not EW's failure. The 2S-bid must always be alerted, regardless of its meaning, so NS are still not alerted about anything unusual. >- NS's infractions: the 2S bid was a natural bid by agreement and nobody >can dispute this. South's double of 2S was, by agreement a take-out >double of spades, even if South, mistakenly, intended another meaning. >North commited an infraction (L16) when passing a take-out double, using >UI (he illegally knew his partner had not inquired about the meaning of >2S and could infer his double did not conform to their agreement). >Adjustment needed on the base of North's most logical alternative to >pass, in response to the take-out double of 2S. I don't agree. From the story, it appears that the 2S-bid in its natural meaning is very uncommon (let's say that about 99% of all 2S-bids promises anything but spades). Since an alert is evidently not enough to warn NS about this unusual meaning of the 2S-bid, my opinion is that both North and South assumed the wrong meaning of the 2S-bid. North's pass is therefore not based on South not asking, but based on his own misunderstanding. I suspect that, had West asked North about partner's double, he would honesty have explained this double as penalty. Of course, NS must be told next time to inquire about the meaning of such a 2S-bid. And EW should not alert the natural 2S. Otherwise, there is never any difference between the more common artificial meanings and the unusual natural meaning. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 04:08:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:46:21 +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 AAA15473 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:46:13 +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 IAA08419 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 08:46:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991201084749.00684e94@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 08:47:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Boston NABC Appeals Case 1 In-Reply-To: <02e901bf3b6c$5f2f37e0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:46 AM 11/30/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: > APPEALS CASE 1 > Subject (Tempo): Event: NABC Life Master Pairs, > November 19, 1999 - Second Qualifying Session > >Bd: 13 Rick Goldstein >Dlr: North S J >Vul: Both H 8 3 2 > D K 6 2 > C K Q 10 7 5 4 > Paul Nason Bud Biswas > S 10 7 5 S A K Q 8 3 > H J 10 7 H A 9 6 5 > D J 9 8 7 3 D A Q > C 8 2 C J 6 > Laura Brill > S 9 6 4 2 > H K Q 4 > D 10 5 4 > C A 9 3 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > - Pass 1S Pass > Pass 2C 2H 3C > Pass Pass Dbl (1) Pass > 3S All Pass > > (1) Break in tempo >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >The Facts: > >3S made three, plus 140 for E/W. The Director was called when it took >East 10 seconds to double 3C. All players agreed the pause had been 10 >seconds. The Director ruled that pass was a logical alternative to >West's 3S bid. The contract was changed to 3C doubled, made three, >plus 670 for N/S. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >The Appeal: > >E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East did not attend the hearing. >West was in a hurry to catch a train. The facts not being in dispute, >and the parties being amicable to it, an abbreviated fact finding >session ensued with both sides stating their case. West then left. > >West stated that his own club length told him that East's double was >manifestly not a trump stack. His own length in both majors detracted >from his partner's tricks on defense while increasing the chance that >3S would make. He considered that bidding 3S was simply a bridge >valuation and that the tempo of the double was irrelevant. E/W have >played together twice in the last year - the length of the >partnership. > >N/S believed that a slow double made removal to 3S by West more >attractive. At the vulnerability the chance of plus 200 from 3C >doubled and minus 200 from 3S were real. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >The Committee Decision: > >The Committee was of the opinion that the correct bridge bid with the >West cards was to remove the double of 3C to 3S. While at any other >vulnerability there would clearly be no logical alternative to this >action because of the major-suit length, here it was worth further >consideration to ensure that the same logic applied. > >How significant was the chance of turning plus 200 into plus 140 (or >even minus 100 or worse)? The Committee decided that notwithstanding >the vulnerability although passing might be an alternative it was not >a logical alternative. The Committee changed the contract to 3S made >three, plus 140 for E/W. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Phil Brady, Dick Budd, Jerry Gaer, Jon >Wittes >###################################################### > >Passing is illogical? I'll quote Kaplan again: > >"Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, >absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus, the >score should be adjusted...." I agree with letting the result stand. The tempo of E's double suggests only that he is uncertain whether to continue to compete (the UI suggests that W might wish to "undouble"), but doesn't make it any more or less likely that it is for either takeout or penalty. Once he has competed, W's call was not affected by that fact that he was reluctant to do so. It looks to me like E has responded normally to W's takeout double. So even if you believe that P is an LA for E, I don't see it as having been demonstrably suggested by E's tempo. 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 Dec 2 04:28:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 04:28:10 +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 EAA16526 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 04:28:03 +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 ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:27:53 -0800 Message-ID: <03b301bf3c21$6bc197e0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <383EA0E8.6144ECA@village.uunet.be> <38426523.36F58481@village.uunet.be> <8U7PiPAQ7FR4Ewnx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: MI? - yes I think so Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:26:38 -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: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >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 ? > > No, but the one you are quoting now does not include the word "proof". > In case anyone is wondering about the standing of this footnote vis a vis the Laws, Edgar Kaplan assured me in private correspondence that the footnote to L75D2 is not only an official part of the Laws, like all footnotes, but that its interpretations would be strictly followed. The examples in the footnote are not the best, since ACBL Alert regulations would be part of the story today (natural 2D signoff not Alertable (!), Stayman 2D Alertable). The next revision to the Laws would do better to give examples that do not involve Alerts or Announcements, which differ from place to place and from time to time. That would not be easy, so maybe the examples should be based on a bid that is universally Alertable when it has one of two or more Alertable meanings. Flannery 2D and Multi 2D, perhaps. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 05:03:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:03:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from inet16.us.oracle.com (inet16.us.oracle.com [209.246.15.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA16671 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:03:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailsun2.us.oracle.com (mailsun2.us.oracle.com [144.25.88.74]) by inet16.us.oracle.com (8.9.2/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA05386; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:02:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from dlsun565.us.oracle.com (sun-jboyce.us.oracle.com [144.25.19.129]) by mailsun2.us.oracle.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21621; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:02:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jboyce@localhost) by dlsun565.us.oracle.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA26111; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:02:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:02:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912011802.KAA26111@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> X-Authentication-Warning: dlsun565.us.oracle.com: jboyce set sender to jboyce@us.oracle.com using -f From: Jim Boyce To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199912011551.KAA18535@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:51:21 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: Law 23 Reply-to: jboyce%sun-jboyce@us.oracle.com References: <199912011551.KAA18535@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, I believe that an important point has been omitted in most of the descriptions of the (hypothetical) situation: The situation should not be 1) Offender bid 2H (insufficient) 2) and corrected to 3D (barring partner). It should be 1) Offender bid 2H (insufficient) 1a) Director is summoned, who fully explains options to non-offenders. [I am not a director, and I am not consulting the laws, now] These options include - accept the call - require the call to be corrected -- note that some some corrections will incur further penalties -- A correction of a non-conventional bid to a sufficient non-conventional in the same strain will not incur additional penalties -- Describe correction to pass -- Describe correction to a different strain -- Describe correction involving conventional bids -- and so on 1b) Non-offender CHOOSES not to accept bid 2) Offender then chooses to bid a different strain, barring partner. ----- When should the non-offender choose NOT to accept the bid? What should non-offender's calls mean over an accpect insifficient bid? (It is not clear that ACBL partnerships are allowed to know the answers to these questions.) I believe that most of the time, the non-offender should accept the insufficient bid. AND, therefore, offender cannot expect to be able to bar his partner. -jim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 05:15:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:15:35 +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 FAA16700 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:15:27 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA30537 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 19:15:16 +0100 Received: from ip96.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.96), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda30535; Wed Dec 1 19:15:14 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 25B twice Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 19:15:13 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <6cpa4skggodijt0311lrufa0e90l1k2rir@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: 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 FAA16701 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 00:18:57 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Unless the Dutch have a regulation covering this similar to Lille that >you may not withdraw an appeal why are we not consigning this appeal to >the deep? If we realize within the correction period that there was a TD error, then L81C6 says that we have to do something about it: The opponents were damaged by a TD error. If we realize it after the correction period has expired, as a result of our treatment of the appel, then I think we still have a duty to the opponents to go through with the appel. Any other views of that? But if the players withdraw the appeal (assuming that is legal) before we have realized that there was a TD error, and we do not realize it until after the correction period has expired, then I think we can follow David's suggestion. > We ignore the rest of the sentence because we are treating both sides >as non-offending. The irregularity is the TD's wrong ruling: without it >the player would have bid 3NT, playing for A-, and made 8 or 10 tricks. >since both sides are now non-offending we give each side the benefit. >So declarer makes 10 tricks to get -3 imps, the most he is allowed, >defenders beat 3NT by one to get a flat board, and we apply L86B to get >a nett score of -1.5 imps to declarer. I agree with that. > Since he is getting +7 imps >without the appeal I suggest we keep his money and tell the appeal was >frivolous! :)))))) The opponents might object. It can hardly be frivolous when it results in the correction of a TD error and a changed result. We might tell him that we are impressed by his ethics in appealing to ensure that the TD error is rectified, even though the correction reduces his own score. > An alternative way of looking at it is to say he *might* have changed >his call to 3NT [saying he would is oppo-serving!]. Then you could >argue that his best score would be +7 imps [as he got] and the opponents >a flat board [from him bidding 3NT and going off]. That gives him +3.5 >imps and starts to feel a bit fairer. L12C2 tells us to give each side the "the most favourable result that was likely...". I find it difficult to imagine an 11-point hand on which not choosing to make a L25B correction to a game contract opposite a 15-17 NT could be considered a likely result. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 05:16:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:16:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (IDENT:root@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA16714 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:16:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03805; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:17:47 +0800 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:17:47 +0800 Message-Id: <199912011817.CAA03805@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "B.Y." In-reply-to: <019e01bf3c03$dbc432a0$65dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <019e01bf3c03$dbc432a0$65dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello, Here is my two cents ... One time when I was still actively playing, I had this auction: Partner RHO ME LHO a - transfer to 2D (alert) 1S Dbl 2C-a 2D-b b - after inquiry about 2C RHO had, and his partner correctly read him for, a hearts-clubs takeout. Very shortly thereafter, I heard THIS auction: Partner RHO ME LHO c - transfer to hearts (alert) 2S Dbl 3D-c 3H-d d - with no inquiry at all Of course, LHO had long hearts! What's more, believe it or not, (a) these were the same opponents in the same match; (b) LHO is a director himself; (c) I had psyched the transfer with just spades; (d) the director let the result stand, stating that I was to blame for playing such methods! I complained bitterly to the late EK in a letter to TBW, and his reply (in brief) is that, in HIS idea of ethics, one should ALWAYS ask about an alert when an auction is still competitive (the late Robert Goldman would call it a `tempo-sensitive auction') and pause briefly (break in tempo), regardless of one's hand. He added that he understood that it is by no means a universal opinion and many high ranking directors and others -- who should otherwise know better -- disagree with him. So, no, I disagree with the sentiments heretofore expressed by Peter G because it is clear that not finding out about an unusual alert before bidding does transmit UI, and people WILL take advantage. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 05:23:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:23:44 +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 FAA16734 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:23:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA30568 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 19:23:26 +0100 Received: from ip46.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.46), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda30565; Wed Dec 1 19:23:19 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 19:23:18 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <2gpa4s8fphonb5s0lp8i7ckk71vqqnjdh9@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <003c01bf3b98$b1eb0320$8560868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <003c01bf3b98$b1eb0320$8560868b@gillp.bigpond.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id FAA16735 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 12:09:18 +1100, "Peter Gill" wrote: >2. Yes. When South discards a spade with four spades visible in >dummy, it is a routine assumption that South does not have four >spades. East knows that South has eight major suit cards. He can >be expected to discard from a five card suit if he has one. With 4-4, >looking at that dummy, a heart discard is the only logical one. S also knows from the bidding that E has 4 hearts. >I have assumed Division 2 in Denmark would be play of a >moderately high standard. Yes. The 2. division consists of 12 teams playing to get into the 1. division, which consists of 12 teams playing for the Danish Teams Championship. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 05:49:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:49:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (IDENT:root@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA16788 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 05:49:18 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03920; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:50:52 +0800 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:50:52 +0800 Message-Id: <199912011850.CAA03920@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "B.Y." In-reply-to: <019e01bf3c03$dbc432a0$65dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <019e01bf3c03$dbc432a0$65dc868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > So, no, I disagree with the sentiments heretofore expressed by Peter G > because it is clear that not finding out about an unusual alert before > bidding does transmit UI, and people WILL take advantage. Hello again, Sorry, perhaps I should clariy my position here. I realise that it is in fact a bad set of rules and circumstances that lead to the unfortunate situation. But it still transmit UI -- often copious amounts of it -- if one cannot act in a consistent way in an auction that is likely to be competitive. Having been shafted too many times by unscrupulous or ignorant opponents both in Taiwan and in the U.S., I do believe that the initial poster has a legitimate grievance -- no matter that some prominent personages are known to disagree, here. A different sort of problem happen in such situations, with all alerts that does not transmit useful information. The same thing happens with the ACBL's former rules with no alerts for intermediate jump overcall and true optional doubles. B.Y. P.S. Is it possible for me for the bridge-laws mailing list to be in digest form, one digest per so many kilobytes or one digest per day (or half-day)? The number of messages is quite large ... From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 06:15:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 06:15:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe49.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.86]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA16881 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 06:15:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 40749 invoked by uid 65534); 1 Dec 1999 19:14:51 -0000 Message-ID: <19991201191451.40748.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.57] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> <38452BA9.F048160C@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:10:44 -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: Jean Pierre Rocafort Cc: BLML Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 8:07 AM Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Konrad Ciborowski a écrit : > > > Last week I played in Swiss Pairs. At Game All I opened 1NT > (weak, 13-15PC). My LHO passed and partner responded 2S - natural, > sign off. > Now, Poland doesn't have any special alert regulations like > ACBL. So the only regulation remains the definition of an alert in > TFLB. There are two kinds of problems: > 1) bids that can have two different popular meanings: 2C opening > is an example; it is still popular as ART GF and many players > use it as a Precision opening > 2) bids that are conventional and the conventional meaning is a lot > more popular than the natural one; e.g. JTB. > > I personally don't alert JTB and do alert natural responses > to 1NT. So I did alert my partner's 2S. > > W(me) N E S > 1NT p 2S ? > > 1NT was alerted and explained accordingly. In Poland > the 2S response to the _strong_ 1NT opening in 99% shows either clubs > or is two-way: INV with no 4-card major or is a transfer to clubs. > Anyway is doesn't say anything specific about spades and therefore > many players still alert it. This 1NT opening was weak but South > nevertheless assumed the usual meaning of 2S response > and doubled with a bunch of spades without asking about the meaning. > His partner passed and we got a cold bottom. Had South asked > about the meaning he would have realized that his double would be > for T/O. Now it would have been a lot harder for NS to catch us. > We didn't call the Director. Should we? > Comments are welcome. However, pls don't elaborate on the > issue: "Ya see, that's why you gotta have alert regulations just like > we in ACBL do". :) Just try to make a ruling only with the Law Book > in your hand. Would we have a chance? > 2 points to examine: - Were NS properly alerted to the meaning of 2S? it may depend upon alert regulations but I tend to answer yes. I think South was very negligent (or worse?) to act over a 2S bid, the meaning of which he could not know for sure and he didn't care to know. - NS's infractions: the 2S bid was a natural bid by agreement and nobody can dispute this. South's double of 2S was, by agreement a take-out double of spades, even if South, mistakenly, intended another meaning. North commited an infraction (L16) when passing a take-out double, using UI (he illegally knew his partner had not inquired about the meaning of 2S and could infer his double did not conform to their agreement). Adjustment needed on the base of North's most logical alternative to pass, in response to the take-out double of 2S. This is not so uncommon an infraction, using multi-meaning bids as a defense against artificial opponent bids: I use to play a system in which the 1C opening means "spades"; when LHO holds 4441 distribution, he doubles without asking and when he holds 1444, he may also make a take-out double, once he has asked! Fortunately the Laws protect the game against this form of behaviour. JP 2S is natural and so is alerted? Therefore he must he ask? So that he finds out that he does not wish to take action and therefore bar his partner from doubling? Pfui, I refuse to play by such a rule. But it is not relevant. A player has the duty to know/ explain his own agreements when asked, not his opponents' agreements. It is usually to his advantage to know his opponents' agreements. NS do not have an obligation to ask questions, and to raise the specter of unfair play when they don't is unfortunate. If there is a culprit it is the disclosure regulations- or perhaps your bidding methods or judgement. Does 'rub of the green' bring any images to mind? But it seems that you feel that your scores would be better if only your opponents knew your bidding methods. A solution for this is to give instruction before the game so that they will understand the meaning of your bidding . Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 06:26:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 06:26:42 +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 GAA16915 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 06:26:35 +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 ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:26:20 -0800 Message-ID: <03c901bf3c31$f7061be0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be><001d01bf3314$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><025701bf3aaf$531a8d00$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$0BPKJA65FR4EwkC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:26:14 -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 David Stevenson wrote: >You are [b] someone who will complain at > the drop of a hat about your opponents' lack of following CC regs, and > yet you want to get rid of PPs, the one way that you can control them. You misunderstand. I am greatly in favor of PPs for the sorts of offenses described in L90B. That includes L90B8, "failure to follow tournament regulations or any instruction of the Director." For instance, I would like the Daily Bulletins of NABCs to repeatedly state that pairs must have two legible and complete CCs on the table, with a PP immediately slapped on anyone who does not comply within one round after a violation of this requirement has been noted (as called for by a currently unenforced ACBL regulation). My objection is to PPs for inadvertent MI or misuse of UI, or for other infractions that are covered by specific Laws. As with Zero Tolerance, I feel that disciplinary penalties should be per L91A, when necesssary to "maintain order and discipline." Repeated MI/UI infractions that occur in seeming disregard of a TD lecture are possible candidates for a PP per L90B8, when not serious enough to warrant L91A or C&E action. PP warnings should be carefully worded, something like "I have instructed you on the provisions of the Laws [or regulations], and if you deliberately fail to follow those instructions, or do so repeatedly, you will be subject to a procedural [or discisplinaryt] penalty." Merely making a couple of unrelated Alert mistakes in a game should not be grounds for a PP, considering the complexity of ACBL Alert regulations. Similarly, several inadvertent violations ("I thought I had my bid") of the LA provisions in L16A ought not to warrant a PP. I hope we can at least agree, David, that the sort of TD ruling or AC decision which assesses a PP for MI that caused no damage, but no PP when damage has been redressed, is wrong. > >aka Cato > > Cato? You were in the Pink Panther? I think it was Dany who jokingly pinned that name on me. The allusion is to Cato the Elder (234-190 B.C.) of Rome and his practice (according to Pliny the Elder) of ending every senate speech, no matter what the subject, with the same words (often misquoted): "Ceterum censeo delandam esse Carthaginem," which I translate as "Furthermore, it is my strong belief that Carthage must be destroyed." He eventually got his wish, perhaps because of this Chinese Water Torture approach. Marv (Marvin L. French) aka Cato From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 06:54:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 06:54:26 +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 GAA17041 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 06:54:18 +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 OAA21775; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:54:05 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991201084749.00684e94@pop.cais.com> References: <02e901bf3b6c$5f2f37e0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:44:43 -0500 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Boston NABC Appeals Case 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 8:47 AM -0500 12/1/99, Eric Landau wrote: >I agree with letting the result stand. The tempo of E's double suggests >only that he is uncertain whether to continue to compete (the UI suggests >that W might wish to "undouble"), but doesn't make it any more or less >likely that it is for either takeout or penalty. Once he has competed, W's >call was not affected by that fact that he was reluctant to do so. It >looks to me like E has responded normally to W's takeout double. So even >if you believe that P is an LA for E, I don't see it as having been >demonstrably suggested by E's tempo. This is a useful principle; if the AI itself suggests uncertainty, then there should be no problem with the UI. The classic example is a slow forcing pass; the forcing pass itself says, "I don't know whether to double or bid on," and its slowness does not demonstrably make doubling or bidding on more attractive. The situation here is similar; East made a slow action double. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 08:45:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:45:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17344 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:44:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-211-1.s1.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.211.1] helo=hdavis) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 11tHXr-0004F1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:44:15 -0500 Message-ID: <011a01bf3c45$31ed2ba0$01d33ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199911292351.SAA16893@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law 23 Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:44:03 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Law 23 [snip] > > If you had a little method to silence partner *every* time you bid > first on a 2-count would you not use it - and get the odd bad board when > he has 23+HCP? I would. > [snip] There was a time in my life when I was playing regularly with my lady friend, who, while a very kind and intelligent person, could not seem to grasp even the most rudimentary aspects of bidding. If such a method existed, I would have used it far more often than the odd 2-count... ;-) ;-) ;-) Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 09:26:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:26:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17435 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:26:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.82.143] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11tICA-000Ds5-00; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 22:25:54 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bf3c4a$ff19f180$8f5208c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: MI? - yes I think so Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 22:24:24 -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 December 1999 16:17 Subject: Re: MI? - yes I think so > >Grattan Endicott>> 'Evidence' intended >collaborative matter other than the assertion of >the side whose action is under scrutiny; > > === CORRECTION: 'CORROBORATIVE MATTER' who heard of any collaboration around here? ~ G ~ === From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 09:45:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:45:18 +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 JAA17518 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:45:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id la273323 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:44:32 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-97.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.97]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Mixed-Up-MailRouter V2.6e 13/44744); 02 Dec 1999 08:44:32 Message-ID: <004001bf3c4d$7a3c8c40$615e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:43:23 +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 Jesper wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >>2. Yes. When South discards a spade with four spades visible in >>dummy, it is a routine assumption that South does not have four >>spades. East knows that South has eight major suit cards. He can >>be expected to discard from a five card suit if he has one. With 4-4, >>looking at that dummy, a heart discard is the only logical one. > > >S also knows from the bidding that E has 4 hearts. > And South knows that East has six clubs, one diamond and SAKQ. So only three rounds of hearts are relevant since there are only thirteen tricks. Your comment should not matter to a good player, who should recognise that declarer's fourth heart will be discarded on a spade. >>I have assumed Division 2 in Denmark would be play of a >>moderately high standard. > >Yes. The 2. division consists of 12 teams playing to get into >the 1. division, which consists of 12 teams playing for the >Danish Teams Championship. I think South should stay in Division 2, if possible. He had a totally safe heart discard. Declarer's shape had been revealed a couple of tricks before the fumble. South should try to be "on the ball" so that he does not have to fumble. Bad bridge by South IMO. I am glad Grattan has indicated the relevant interpretations and Laws. My skills are better suited to the analytical part of the AC's job, especially in a case like this where good players are involved. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 10:02:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:02:00 +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 KAA17561 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:01:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ea273732 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:01:17 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-97.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.97]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Bored-MailRouter V2.6e 13/48425); 02 Dec 1999 09:01:16 Message-ID: <006d01bf3c4f$d0d0efe0$615e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:00:08 +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 B.Y. wrote: >> So, no, I disagree with the sentiments heretofore expressed by Peter G >> because it is clear that not finding out about an unusual alert before >> bidding does transmit UI, and people WILL take advantage. > >Hello again, > > Sorry, perhaps I should clariy my position here. I realise >that it is in fact a bad set of rules and circumstances that lead to >the unfortunate situation. But it still transmit UI -- often copious >amounts of it -- if one cannot act in a consistent way in an auction >that is likely to be competitive. Having been shafted too many times >by unscrupulous or ignorant opponents both in Taiwan and in the U.S., >I do believe that the initial poster has a legitimate grievance -- no >matter that some prominent personages are known to disagree, here. > > A different sort of problem happen in such situations, with >all alerts that does not transmit useful information. The same thing >happens with the ACBL's former rules with no alerts for intermediate >jump overcall and true optional doubles. > So how should the rules be written to catch the offenders when (1) one player, perhaps a beginner, never ever asks about an alert so his question about 2S would transmit UI. (2) another player, called EK perhaps, always asks. This guy will spend a lot of time asking in Australia, where one comes across 15 alerts per auction in Relay Systems sometimes. When he doesn't ask about 2S, it is UI. (3) It is impossible surely to regulate that both asking and not asking are UI. When the Director doesn't know the player's history of asking or not asking, how can one regulate to penalise the offending UI? That is why I answered "No" to Konrad's question. The Laws do not seem to cover the situation, and I am not smart enough to see how the Laws ever could catch the right people. >P.S. Is it possible for me for the bridge-laws mailing list to be in > digest form, one digest per so many kilobytes or one digest per > day (or half-day)? The number of messages is quite large ... Good question. Would someone please answer this one? BLML would most likely gain some top people, including a respected leading Australian TD, if this were the case. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 10:26:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:26:34 +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 KAA17656 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:26:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba274353 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:25:43 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-97.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.97]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Magnifico-MailRouter V2.6e 13/53563); 02 Dec 1999 09:25:42 Message-ID: <008001bf3c53$3ad430c0$615e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:24:34 +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 Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >>..........Now, Poland doesn't have any special alert regulations like >> ACBL. So the only regulation remains the definition of an alert in >> TFLB............ >>.......... Just try to make a ruling only with the Law Book >> in your hand. Would we have a chance? >> >....... This is not so uncommon an infraction, using multi-meaning bids >as a defense against artificial opponent bids: I use to play a system in >which the 1C opening means "spades"; when LHO holds 4441 distribution, >he doubles without asking and when he holds 1444, he may also make a >take-out double, once he has asked! Fortunately the Laws protect the >game against this form of behaviour. > Which Law? Let's say that two beginners play a 2C response to 1NT as natural. We normally play double of Stayman as "clubs", but in the unlikely event that 2C was natural, double would be takeout. An example of "multi meaning bids as a defense against artificial opponent bids", you could say. The bidding goes 1NT by my LHO. Pass by my partner. 2C by RHO. Alert. I don't ask, since it is many years since I have come across 2C natural, and many opponents since then have alerted 2C as Puppet Stayman or whatever. I double with my fistful of clubs. All pass. I believe that you say I have committed an infraction. I think I just got lucky. And the next time I play this pair, I will ask about 2C, just to see if they've switched to Stayman yet. Then I double, this time for takeout. Have I committed an infraction? I have not intended to. Which Law have I broken? All of this I have done quite innocently. How do the Laws distinguish between me, asking or not asking because of the context of my previous experience of the opponents and bridge in general, and the person with malice aforethought? Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 10:47:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:47:17 +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 KAA17723 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:47:10 +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 ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:46:56 -0800 Message-ID: <042001bf3c56$5d16e9e0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <02e901bf3b6c$5f2f37e0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Boston NABC Appeals Case 1 Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 15:46:11 -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: > At 8:47 AM -0500 12/1/99, Eric Landau wrote: > > >I agree with letting the result stand. The tempo of E's double suggests > >only that he is uncertain whether to continue to compete (the UI suggests > >that W might wish to "undouble"), but doesn't make it any more or less > >likely that it is for either takeout or penalty. Once he has competed, W's > >call was not affected by that fact that he was reluctant to do so. It > >looks to me like E has responded normally to W's takeout double. So even > >if you believe that P is an LA for E, I don't see it as having been > >demonstrably suggested by E's tempo. > > This is a useful principle; if the AI itself suggests uncertainty, then > there should be no problem with the UI. The classic example is a slow > forcing pass; the forcing pass itself says, "I don't know whether to double > or bid on," and its slowness does not demonstrably make doubling or bidding > on more attractive. I agree with that. The pass only says, "You make the decision." It does not suggest any call, so no UI. When a pass would be forcing, a slow double is UI, for it says, "I have made the decision, but I don't feel good about it." It suggests that a bid would not be unwelcome. > > The situation here is similar; East made a slow action double. > But a pass would not be forcing in this case. It is a completely different situation, not similar at all. I don't believe the term "action double" applies when partner has never acted. The double merely says, "I have shown five spades and four hearts, and I don't think the opponents will take nine tricks in clubs." It does not say, "Do something intelligent," which I believe is true of action doubles, opposite a partner who has previously acted. The slowness of the double only says that the doubler is not very confident about beating 3C. The double cannot be for takeout, since there was an opportunity for a takeout double on the previous round. Can one never double for penalties anymore? The 3S bid was correct, but suggested by the UI. A pass of the double would not have been illogical, so adjust the score to 3C doubled. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 12:26:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:26:41 +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 MAA18232 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:26:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-013.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.205]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA00272 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 01:25:54 GMT Message-ID: <00e601bf3c6c$f48d51e0$cd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:28:42 -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 Konrad wrote > > I personally don't alert JTB and do alert natural responses > to 1NT. So I did alert my partner's 2S. > > W(me) N E S > 1NT p 2S ? > > 1NT was alerted and explained accordingly. In Poland > the 2S response to the _strong_ 1NT opening in 99% shows either clubs > or is two-way: INV with no 4-card major or is a transfer to clubs. > Anyway is doesn't say anything specific about spades and therefore > many players still alert it. This 1NT opening was weak but South > nevertheless assumed the usual meaning of 2S response > and doubled with a bunch of spades without asking about the meaning. > His partner passed and we got a cold bottom. Had South asked > about the meaning he would have realized that his double would be > for T/O. Now it would have been a lot harder for NS to catch us. > We didn't call the Director. Should we? This case is similar to the situation where opponents Double a 1NT opening without asking about the strength of the 1NT to show a really good hand. With a less powerful hand they will enquire about the strength of the 1NT opening before they Double. Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 13:31:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:31:58 +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 NAA18422 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:31:48 +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 11tM1r-0009EW-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:31:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:03:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives References: <076901bf3ab2$b8316da0$1ede868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.1.32.19991130221654.00763c2c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991130221654.00763c2c@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 08:42 AM 11/30/99 +1100, Peter 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. > >Certainly. And although you have no obligation to defend your friend's >position, your presentation of it suggests a degree of sympathy. > >Tell your friend he is absolutely mistaken. There is no way to read the >plain English of "may not" to suggest that it is somehow less obligatory >then "must not". It _does not_ mean "oughtn't to" or "probably shouldn't". >It means that to do so is a violation of the Law. Period. According to the Scope: "Note that "may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just short of "must not." -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 13:31:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:31:58 +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 NAA18424 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:31:48 +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 11tM1s-0006W0-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:31:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:58:26 +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> <38426523.36F58481@village.uunet.be> <8U7PiPAQ7FR4Ewnx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <38450757.CA2A2794@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38450757.CA2A2794@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: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> No, but the one you are quoting now does not include the word "proof". >> > >Indeed "evidence", not "proof". > >I stand corrected. > >Sorry once again for my poor choice of words. > >Perhaps it is because dutch has no real different words for >proof and evidence. "Bewijs" can be used for both. >The Dutch version of the Laws uses the word "Bewijs", which >I simply translate to proof, although "Bewijsstuk" would be >better for evidence. Perhaps then I should explain the difference. If an opponent of yours says to the TD "Snodgrass is slimy little cheat" that is evidence that he is a cheat. It is nowhere near proof and a TD will normally ignore it. Proof is enough evidence in one particular direction that action will reasonably be taken. The level that is required may depend on the situation. If Snodgrass is accused of cheating the proof required is similar to that required by the courts: beyond reasonable doubt. In most Directing situations proof is not required: the Director makes a judgement between two sides. The MI one is interesting because there is a default situation: a level of evidence is required otherwise, but it is a judgement what level of evidence - but it certainly falls short of "beyond reasonable doubt". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 2 13:31:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:31:55 +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 NAA18421 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:31:45 +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 11tM1t-0009EX-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:31:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:06:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > Last week I played in Swiss Pairs. At Game All I opened 1NT >(weak, 13-15PC). My LHO passed and partner responded 2S - natural, >sign off. > Now, Poland doesn't have any special alert regulations like >ACBL. So the only regulation remains the definition of an alert in >TFLB. There are two kinds of problems: >1) bids that can have two different popular meanings: 2C opening > is an example; it is still popular as ART GF and many players > use it as a Precision opening >2) bids that are conventional and the conventional meaning is a lot > more popular than the natural one; e.g. JTB. > > I personally don't alert JTB and do alert natural responses >to 1NT. So I did alert my partner's 2S. > >W(me) N E S >1NT p 2S ? > > > 1NT was alerted and explained accordingly. In Poland >the 2S response to the _strong_ 1NT opening in 99% shows either clubs >or is two-way: INV with no 4-card major or is a transfer to clubs. >Anyway is doesn't say anything specific about spades and therefore >many players still alert it. This 1NT opening was weak but South >nevertheless assumed the usual meaning of 2S response >and doubled with a bunch of spades without asking about the meaning. > His partner passed and we got a cold bottom. Had South asked >about the meaning he would have realized that his double would be >for T/O. Now it would have been a lot harder for NS to catch us. > We didn't call the Director. Should we? > Comments are welcome. However, pls don't elaborate on the >issue: "Ya see, that's why you gotta have alert regulations just like >we in ACBL do". :) Just try to make a ruling only with the Law Book >in your hand. Would we have a chance? No. You may have committed an infraction, but damage from your own infraction gives no redress. The oppos committed no infraction. There is a strong case for finding out the alerting rules and following them even when you think they 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 Thu Dec 2 13:34:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:34:47 +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 NAA18470 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:34:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh4r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.155]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA03079 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:34:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991201213141.007700e8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 21:31:41 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:23 AM 12/1/99 +0100, Konrad wrote: >W(me) N E S >1NT p 2S ? > > > 1NT was alerted and explained accordingly. In Poland >the 2S response to the _strong_ 1NT opening in 99% shows either clubs >or is two-way: INV with no 4-card major or is a transfer to clubs. >Anyway is doesn't say anything specific about spades and therefore >many players still alert it. This 1NT opening was weak but South >nevertheless assumed the usual meaning of 2S response >and doubled with a bunch of spades without asking about the meaning. > His partner passed and we got a cold bottom. Had South asked >about the meaning he would have realized that his double would be >for T/O. Now it would have been a lot harder for NS to catch us. > We didn't call the Director. Should we? I'm confused. Call the Director for what? Do you think there was an infraction of some sort in South's _failure_ to inquire about the double? You'll have to find a legal citation of some sort if you want redress. That things might have worked out better for you if EW had done something different is no reason to seek the TD's help. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 13:39:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:39:40 +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 NAA18514 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:39:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh4r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.155]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA20907 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:39:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991201213635.0076f0f0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 21:36:35 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Not 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 01:21 PM 12/1/99 +0100, Martin wrote: >We in the Netherlands do have alert regulations. However, that would >not have helped in this case. According to these regulations, the >2S must be alerted in the more common meanings, for it is a >convention. But your 2S must also be alerted, since the natural >meaning is apparently highly uncommon. So 2S must always be alerted, >and South will still make the same lucky mistake. Now there's a sensible system of alerts! 2S is _always_ alertable in these auctions, on the principle that since most players treat it as artificial (hence alertable), the minority that plays it as natural must alert it. Naturally, the alert is completely meaningless in all cases. The Polish approach to alert regulation looks pretty sensible, at least compared to that. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 13:50:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:50:43 +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 NAA18557 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:50:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh4r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.155]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA18555 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 21:50:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991201214745.0076bec4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 21:47:45 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <38452BA9.F048160C@meteo.fr> References: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:07 PM 12/1/99 +0100, Jean Pierre wrote: >- Were NS properly alerted to the meaning of 2S? it may depend upon >alert regulations but I tend to answer yes. I think South was very >negligent (or worse?) to act over a 2S bid, the meaning of which he >could not know for sure and he didn't care to know. > >- NS's infractions: the 2S bid was a natural bid by agreement and nobody >can dispute this. South's double of 2S was, by agreement a take-out >double of spades, even if South, mistakenly, intended another meaning. >North commited an infraction (L16) when passing a take-out double, using >UI (he illegally knew his partner had not inquired about the meaning of >2S and could infer his double did not conform to their agreement). >Adjustment needed on the base of North's most logical alternative to >pass, in response to the take-out double of 2S. Sorry, but there is no evidence that the NS "agreement" is that this double is for take-out. To the contrary, it is clear that South intended his double to show spades, and North interpreted it that way. South's failure to ask suggests nothing at all to North, beyond what he already assumes about the EW auction. The problem originates in the practice of alerting a natural call. Konrad obviously does this because he believes it furthers the cause of full disclosure, but in fact the outcome is the exact opposite in this case. There is, IMO, a certain rough justice that the mis-guided alert creates confusion on the part of the opponents that redounds to his disadvantage. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 14:15:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:15:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18638 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:15:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA22040; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:14:48 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19991202141421.00f29da0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 14:14:22 +1100 To: "B.Y." , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: BLML in Digest form? (was Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit) Cc: GillP@bigpond.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:50 2/12/99 +0800, B.Y. wrote: >P.S. Is it possible for me for the bridge-laws mailing list to be in > digest form, one digest per so many kilobytes or one digest per > day (or half-day)? The number of messages is quite large ... This came up once before - a few people asked about it, but nobody seemed too fussed about it not being available then. Maybe the traffic has increased sufficiently to make it of interest again ? I can set things up to provide a digest version of BLML - this would be effectively a separate list, with replies going to the single-message form of BLML. The problem I see is that it is quite hard to effectively thread multiple messages, and also reply to individual messages in a digest - unless your mailreader splits them back into individual messages. But in that case you have not gained anything with the digest version over the single-message version ? Is it more comfortable for the lurkers perhaps ? But will that inhibit them from "coming out" ? I'd appreciate comments on what people see as the advantages of a digest option. It's not too much effort (based on what I've read of the majordomo docs :-) ), so I could probably set it up next week in a quiet patch. Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 15:58:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA18875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:58:19 +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 PAA18870 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:58:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveghp.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.57]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA26368 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 1999 23:58:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991201235520.00748d74@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 23:55:20 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991130221654.00763c2c@pop.mindspring.com> <076901bf3ab2$b8316da0$1ede868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.1.32.19991130221654.00763c2c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:03 PM 12/1/99 +0000, David S wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At 08:42 AM 11/30/99 +1100, Peter 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. >> >>Certainly. And although you have no obligation to defend your friend's >>position, your presentation of it suggests a degree of sympathy. >> >>Tell your friend he is absolutely mistaken. There is no way to read the >>plain English of "may not" to suggest that it is somehow less obligatory >>then "must not". It _does not_ mean "oughtn't to" or "probably shouldn't". >>It means that to do so is a violation of the Law. Period. > > According to the Scope: "Note that "may" becomes very strong in the >negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just >short of "must not." You are right, of course, although I don't think that you have contradicted what I was trying (if ineptly) to say. To do something which the Laws say you "may not" is absolutely, 100% illegal. There is no action or category of actions which would be permissible under the "may not" language but impermissible under the "must not" standard. I think Grattan had it about right, in that the difference, if any, will tend to be reflected in the seriousness with which the behavior will be regarded as well as the consequences. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 18:47:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 18:47:06 +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 SAA19143 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 18:46:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.156] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11tQwy-0000QF-00; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 07:46:48 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01bf3c99$5b130820$9c5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jean Pierre Rocafort" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 07:45:39 -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 Cc: BLML Date: 01 December 1999 14:43 Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Ha scritto Konrad Ciborowski : > > Now, Poland doesn't have any special alert regulations like > ACBL. So the only regulation remains the definition of an alert in > TFLB. > +=+ In quello caso, in Polonia non esistono gli 'alerts'. Abbisogna una regola apposita nazionale per stabilire l'esistenza del detto modo di avvertenza agli oppositi. La legge non fa altro che specificare la possibilita' di un tale provvedimento. ~ G ~ +=+ Without a regulation in Poland, no requirement to alert exists. The laws only point to the possibility of such a regulation. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 18:47:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 18:47:07 +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 SAA19142 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 18:46:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.156] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11tQwx-0000QF-00; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 07:46:47 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01bf3c99$5a5a6680$9c5108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , , Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 23:08:16 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; gester@globalnet.co.uk Date: 01 December 1999 11:23 Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives > In short: if I knew what >a good player would bid on a given hand then I would be a good player. > +=+ A non sequitur. You can have the knowledge but be inferior as a player if you fail to act upon it as consistently at the table. But, this aside, those consulted are asked to judge accordingly; we are discussing the role not the qualification of the consultee. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 19:25:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:25:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19193 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:25:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.81] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11tRYQ-0001QO-00; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:25:30 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bf3c9e$c3150fe0$515108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:13:34 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 December 1999 03:51 Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit > That >things might have worked out better for you >if EW had done something >different is no reason to seek the TD's help. > >Mike Dennis > +=+ A crying shame. That's a whole raft of appeals tossed out of the window. :-)) ~Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 19:25:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:25:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19194 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:25:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.81] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11tRYR-0001QO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:25:31 +0000 Message-ID: <000301bf3c9e$c3bb6200$515108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:24:18 -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: 02 December 1999 03:39 Subject: RE: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit >At 01:21 PM 12/1/99 +0100, Martin wrote: >>We in the Netherlands do have alert regulations. However, that would >>not have helped in this case. According to these regulations, the >>2S must be alerted in the more common meanings, for it is a >>convention. But your 2S must also be alerted, since the natural >>meaning is apparently highly uncommon. So 2S must always be alerted, >>and South will still make the same lucky mistake. > >Now there's a sensible system of alerts! 2S is _always_ alertable in these >auctions, on the principle that since most players treat it as artificial >(hence alertable), the minority that plays it as natural must alert it. >Naturally, the alert is completely meaningless in all cases. > >The Polish approach to alert regulation looks pretty sensible, at least >compared to that. > >Mike Dennis > +=+ Venice Cup Final 1985: US v. GB. The US ladies made representation to the Director that the unfamiliarity to them of the weak NT played by the British ladies should be grounds for alerting it; whereupon the British ladies asked for reciprocity in relation to the strong 1NT opener that they rarely met in the UK. It was amicably agreed that all 1NT openers would be alerted. Dan Morse was my opposing Captain. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 20:33:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 20:33:16 +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 UAA19334 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 20:33:07 +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 JAA29294 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:32:27 GMT Message-ID: <38463CB1.65168DF3@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 10:32:33 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> <3.0.1.32.19991201214745.0076bec4@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" a écrit : > > At 03:07 PM 12/1/99 +0100, Jean Pierre wrote: > >- Were NS properly alerted to the meaning of 2S? it may depend upon > >alert regulations but I tend to answer yes. I think South was very > >negligent (or worse?) to act over a 2S bid, the meaning of which he > >could not know for sure and he didn't care to know. > > > >- NS's infractions: the 2S bid was a natural bid by agreement and nobody > >can dispute this. South's double of 2S was, by agreement a take-out > >double of spades, even if South, mistakenly, intended another meaning. > >North commited an infraction (L16) when passing a take-out double, using > >UI (he illegally knew his partner had not inquired about the meaning of > >2S and could infer his double did not conform to their agreement). > >Adjustment needed on the base of North's most logical alternative to > >pass, in response to the take-out double of 2S. > > Sorry, but there is no evidence that the NS "agreement" is that this double > is for take-out. To the contrary, it is clear that South intended his > double to show spades, and North interpreted it that way. South's failure > to ask suggests nothing at all to North, beyond what he already assumes > about the EW auction. I am afraid the dWs has spread doubt; an "agreement" is not the same thing as an "intended meaning at the instant the bid is made". The agreement preexists before the bid is made, before the deal is played. I think, in this instance, there should have been no doubt, no need to evaluate evidence if somebody had asked NS, one hour before the beginning of play, for their agreement about this double. I see no infraction with South's failure to ask, as soon as he is supposed no to be malicious in so doing. The problem is with North's using of available information. I strongly think he would not have chosen the same action if South had asked about the 2S bid (I assume screens were not in use) and I can't accept he may vary his actions according to this extraneous information. North's pass, a breach of his partnership agreement, is not an infraction except when it is suggested by UI. If he didn't know wether South had asked (which would fortunately have happened had there been a screen), we don't know which would have been North's bid; maybe he would have passed, making the same mistake as South about the meaning of 2S; maybe he would have asked about 2S. In Konrad's situation, North's pass is IMO suggested by UI. On another side, I think that having an agreement for a double without asking and a different agreement for a double after asking is the same thing as having an agreement for a slow double and another for a quick double. In both cases, malice may or may not be involved. JP Rocafort > > The problem originates in the practice of alerting a natural call. Konrad > obviously does this because he believes it furthers the cause of full > disclosure, but in fact the outcome is the exact opposite in this case. > There is, IMO, a certain rough justice that the mis-guided alert creates > confusion on the part of the opponents that redounds to his disadvantage. > > Mike Dennis -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Dec 2 20:33:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 20:33:24 +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 UAA19333 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 20:32:41 +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 KAA01652 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:32:48 +0100 Message-ID: <38463C8D.EE8A104D@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 10:31:57 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: MI? - yes I think so References: <383EA0E8.6144ECA@village.uunet.be> <38426523.36F58481@village.uunet.be> <8U7PiPAQ7FR4Ewnx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <38450757.CA2A2794@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > No, but the one you are quoting now does not include the word "proof". > > > > Indeed "evidence", not "proof". > > I stand corrected. > > Sorry once again for my poor choice of words. > > Perhaps it is because dutch has no real different words for > proof and evidence. "Bewijs" can be used for both. > The Dutch version of the Laws uses the word "Bewijs", which > I simply translate to proof, although "Bewijsstuk" would be > better for evidence. > Interesting. Polish has two different words for "proof" ("dowod") and evidence ("swiadectwo") but in the Polish version of the Laws the equivalent for "proof" is used. So it seems that both Polish and Dutch interpreters failed to grasp this subtlety. On the contrary, the French translation uses the word "évidence" and not "preuve"; not very surprising as the French "évidence" and English "evidence" sound very much alike. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Dec 2 20:42:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 20:42:20 +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 UAA19372 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 20:42:05 +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 JAA00918 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:41:26 GMT Message-ID: <38463ECC.34E65E96@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 10:41:32 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: blml Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> <38452BA9.F048160C@meteo.fr> <19991201191451.40748.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick a écrit : > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jean Pierre Rocafort > Cc: BLML > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 8:07 AM > Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit > > Konrad Ciborowski a écrit : > > > > > > Last week I played in Swiss Pairs. At Game All I opened 1NT > > (weak, 13-15PC). My LHO passed and partner responded 2S - natural, > > sign off. > > Now, Poland doesn't have any special alert regulations like > > ACBL. So the only regulation remains the definition of an alert in > > TFLB. There are two kinds of problems: > > 1) bids that can have two different popular meanings: 2C opening > > is an example; it is still popular as ART GF and many players > > use it as a Precision opening > > 2) bids that are conventional and the conventional meaning is a lot > > more popular than the natural one; e.g. JTB. > > > > I personally don't alert JTB and do alert natural responses > > to 1NT. So I did alert my partner's 2S. > > > > W(me) N E S > > 1NT p 2S ? > > > > 1NT was alerted and explained accordingly. In Poland > > the 2S response to the _strong_ 1NT opening in 99% shows either clubs > > or is two-way: INV with no 4-card major or is a transfer to clubs. > > Anyway is doesn't say anything specific about spades and therefore > > many players still alert it. This 1NT opening was weak but South > > nevertheless assumed the usual meaning of 2S response > > and doubled with a bunch of spades without asking about the meaning. > > His partner passed and we got a cold bottom. Had South asked > > about the meaning he would have realized that his double would be > > for T/O. Now it would have been a lot harder for NS to catch us. > > We didn't call the Director. Should we? > > Comments are welcome. However, pls don't elaborate on the > > issue: "Ya see, that's why you gotta have alert regulations just like > > we in ACBL do". :) Just try to make a ruling only with the Law Book > > in your hand. Would we have a chance? > > > 2 points to examine: > > - Were NS properly alerted to the meaning of 2S? it may depend upon > alert regulations but I tend to answer yes. I think South was very > negligent (or worse?) to act over a 2S bid, the meaning of which he > could not know for sure and he didn't care to know. > > - NS's infractions: the 2S bid was a natural bid by agreement and nobody > can dispute this. South's double of 2S was, by agreement a take-out > double of spades, even if South, mistakenly, intended another meaning. > North commited an infraction (L16) when passing a take-out double, using > UI (he illegally knew his partner had not inquired about the meaning of > 2S and could infer his double did not conform to their agreement). > Adjustment needed on the base of North's most logical alternative to > pass, in response to the take-out double of 2S. > > This is not so uncommon an infraction, using multi-meaning bids as a > defense against artificial opponent bids: I use to play a system in > which the 1C opening means "spades"; when LHO holds 4441 distribution, > he doubles without asking and when he holds 1444, he may also make a > take-out double, once he has asked! Fortunately the Laws protect the > game against this form of behaviour. > > JP > > 2S is natural and so is alerted? Therefore he must he ask? So that he > finds out that he does not wish to take action and therefore bar his partner > from doubling? Pfui, I refuse to play by such a rule. But it is not > relevant. A player has the duty to know/ explain his own agreements when > asked, not his opponents' agreements. It is usually to his advantage to > know his opponents' agreements. NS do not have an obligation to ask > questions, and to raise the specter of unfair play when they don't is > unfortunate. If there is a culprit it is the disclosure regulations- or > perhaps your bidding methods or judgement. Does 'rub of the green' bring > any images to mind? > > But it seems that you feel that your scores would be better if only your > opponents knew your bidding methods. A solution for this is to give > instruction before the game so that they will understand the meaning of your > bidding . Would you agree with me if I say I only meant that a player is not entitled to know, by the means of extraneous information, that his partner has misunderstood an opponent's agreement? JP Rocafort > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Dec 2 21:09:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:09:07 +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 VAA19434 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:08:55 +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 KAA02543 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:08:18 GMT Message-ID: <38464518.47240FF5@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 11:08:24 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <008001bf3c53$3ad430c0$615e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill a écrit : > > Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> > >>..........Now, Poland doesn't have any special alert regulations like > >> ACBL. So the only regulation remains the definition of an alert in > >> TFLB............ > >>.......... Just try to make a ruling only with the Law Book > >> in your hand. Would we have a chance? > >> > >....... This is not so uncommon an infraction, using multi-meaning bids > >as a defense against artificial opponent bids: I use to play a system in > >which the 1C opening means "spades"; when LHO holds 4441 distribution, > >he doubles without asking and when he holds 1444, he may also make a > >take-out double, once he has asked! Fortunately the Laws protect the > >game against this form of behaviour. > > > > Which Law? L16, L73C > > Let's say that two beginners play a 2C response to 1NT as natural. > We normally play double of Stayman as "clubs", but in the unlikely > event that 2C was natural, double would be takeout. An example of > "multi meaning bids as a defense against artificial opponent bids", > you could say. > > The bidding goes 1NT by my LHO. Pass by my partner. 2C by RHO. > Alert. I don't ask, since it is many years since I have come across 2C > natural, and many opponents since then have alerted 2C as Puppet > Stayman or whatever. I double with my fistful of clubs. All pass. You didn't comit an infraction, but a wrong bid (maybe it was intentionnaly and maliciously but I admit it is impossible to prove), but your partner? How could he pass? It is your responsability to demonstrate he did not use UI to providentially understand you had broken your take-out partnership agreement. > > I believe that you say I have committed an infraction. I think I just got > lucky. And the next time I play this pair, I will ask about 2C, just to see > if they've switched to Stayman yet. Then I double, this time for takeout. > Have I committed an infraction? I have not intended to. Which Law > have I broken? When you have clubs, you don't ask to be sure to be able to make a penalty double? Would you take the same risk playing with screens and not knowing whether your partner will ask? And if you had doubled without paying much attention, wouldn't you be afraid to learn, after you doubled and before partner bid, that 2C was natural? > > All of this I have done quite innocently. How do the Laws distinguish > between me, asking or not asking because of the context of my > previous experience of the opponents and bridge in general, and the > person with malice aforethought? > As in many occasions, malice is very difficult to identify, but it is easier to scrutinize the motivations of partner's actions JP Rocafort > Peter Gill > Australia. -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Dec 2 21:46:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:46:25 +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 VAA19498 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:46:16 +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 LAA18170 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:46:33 +0100 Message-ID: <38464DD6.3BF61396@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 11:45:42 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: L70 - language problem Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk L70C2: "(...) it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand (...)" Can any English speaking person clarify to me the meaning of this little "at all likely" bit? Does this mean "very likely"? Thanks. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Dec 2 23:24:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:24:44 +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 XAA19838 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:24:23 +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 11tVHF-0008du-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:24:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:28:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 25B twice References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <6cpa4skggodijt0311lrufa0e90l1k2rir@bilbo.dit.dk> In-Reply-To: <6cpa4skggodijt0311lrufa0e90l1k2rir@bilbo.dit.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 00:18:57 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: >> An alternative way of looking at it is to say he *might* have changed >>his call to 3NT [saying he would is oppo-serving!]. Then you could >>argue that his best score would be +7 imps [as he got] and the opponents >>a flat board [from him bidding 3NT and going off]. That gives him +3.5 >>imps and starts to feel a bit fairer. >L12C2 tells us to give each side the "the most favourable result >that was likely...". I find it difficult to imagine an 11-point >hand on which not choosing to make a L25B correction to a game >contract opposite a 15-17 NT could be considered a likely result. Do you? Time for the statisticians! When you have the points for game that means the odds favour bidding it, not that it is going to make. Vulnerable at imps you only need a slightly over one-in-three chance to bid it. Let us consider what you should do with an 11-count when you have actually bid 2NT. There are two possibilities: [1] You decide to stick with bidding 2NT. When partner is maximum [50% of the time] you will reach game. Because of the extra points you will make it [say] 75% of the time. This will normally be a flat board, with occasional swings which probably balance. When partner is minimum you will miss game. This will be a making game about 55% of the time, and you lose a game swing. It will not make about 35% of the time and you will gain a sizeable swing. The other 10% of the time you will not make either and will gain a tiny swing. I would say that your expectation on the board would be something in the region of -1.5 imps. [2] You decide to bid 3NT and play for -3 imps. Given the occasional loss where something nasty happens your expectation on the board is about -4 imps. Whoops! It is not as simple as that, so long as it is K/O teams. Your actual score on the board will be the average of your -3 imps [or occasionally worse] and your opponent's score. Since you are now bidding game this will be close to flat. So you will probably lose on average about 2 imps. Given the actual scenario, it is my view as a bridge player that, once the L25B options are explained to me, it is clearly better to stick with 2NT except at K/O teams, and slightly better at K/O teams. Even if I have the maths wrong, sticking with 2NT in the circumstances is definitely an LA, in my view being a better bet than accepting L25B. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 2 23:24:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:24:30 +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 XAA19834 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:24:20 +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 11tVHF-0008dw-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:24:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:30:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? References: <99Nov30.234745cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> In-Reply-To: <99Nov30.234745cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?= wrote: >Perhaps you would like to share your opinion on this one, which has caused some >debate in the Danish AC: > >Teams of four >2. division >Dealer: W, Game: All > J63 > Q8 > KQT8542 > T >AKQ7 T9 >AT6 K432 >AJ6 3 >Q95 AJ8432 > 8542 > J975 > 97 > K76 > >S W N E > 2N P 3C(1) (1) Asking >P 3D(2) D 3S(3) (2) Promising 4-card major >P 3N(4) P 4C (3) 4-card hearts >P 4D(5) P 4H(5) (4) 4-card spades >P 4S(5) P 4N(6) (5) cuebid >P 5C(7) P 6C (6) RKCB 30-41 >P P P (7) 0 or 3 aces > >The play: >1. Diamond to A >2. Club to K >3. Diamond, ruffed >4. Club >5. Club to 9 >6. Diamond, ruffed (South discards Spade 2) >7. Spade 10 - (fumble) Spade 5 - Spade 7 - Spade J > >Result: 11 tricks. TD adjusted to 12 tricks. > >Please assume inadvertent fumble (L73D1). > >Questions: > >1: What constitutes innocence in the L73F2-sense? One who does not have a very good idea what is going on. >2: Do you consider this East innocent in the L73F2-sense? Yes, certainly. >3: Do you think East is double shotting? No, why? >4: If you decide to adjust using L12C2, do you deny East redress with reference >to L73D1 (last sentence) or this WBFLC decision from Lille: "The Committee >remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by >a >normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action >that >is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of >action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')" He took a finesse in a finesse or drop situation. That is normal. It is certainly *not* irrational wild or gambling. >5: Assuming a L12C3-jurisdiction, what do you consider an equitable result? 6C making 100%. I do not care whether the fumble was inadvertent: if he was an ethical player he would have said that he had nothing to think about: if he did not he deserves anything he gets. Of course, this paragraph is unfair really - he may be ignorant rather than unethical, but he still should be taught to follow the ethics of the game. Is it not unfortunate that players can act unethically [whether intentionally or not] as South did and then people try to give them something back claiming it is a double shot? It is time we started to feel sympathy for non-offenders: penalising them is ridiculous, bad for the game, and of very dubious legality. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 2 23:24:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:24:33 +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 XAA19840 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:24:24 +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 11tVHF-000Mnq-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:24:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 04:34:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: The important ones MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk List of important beings Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Adam Beneschan Mango MIA David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Ely, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy Wally Farley Andrew, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo Irv Kostal Albert, Cleo, Sabrina, Bill RB Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Rose Grant Sterling Big Mac David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Ritske, Beer, Miepje plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, and MIA is a cat missing in action. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/rbridge.htm The story of Selassie is at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Pictures on Catpage at ( | | ) =( + )= http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 23:24:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:24:38 +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 XAA19844 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:24:26 +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 11tVHN-0008du-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:24:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:06:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling References: <199911301647.LAA17422@cfa183.harvard.edu> <02c801bf3b5e$48c07400$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <02c801bf3b5e$48c07400$6a30d2cc@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: >Steve Willner wrote: > >> > Auction: (NS vulnerable, no screens, collegiate KO teams final) >> > North East South West a: 15+ to 18 hcp >> > 1NT-a Dbl Pass 2H-b b: alerted, explained as transfer to S >> > Pass 2S Dbl Pass-c c: long hesitation (not disputed) >> > Pass Rdbl-d Pass 2NT-e d: long hesitation (not disputed) >> > Pass Pass Dbl [end] e: director called at this point. >> >> One important piece of information is missing. In this partnership, >> is East's redouble unambiguously takeout, or might it be natural? >> >How could it be natural, with East holding a doubleton AK of spades? Based on >that, the redouble was unambiguously S.O.S., for takeout. Was it demonstrably >suggested by West's hesitation over the double? Yes, of course. The contract >should be adjusted to 2S doubled, down whatever, no problem. When making a ruling it is important to find out all the information, including the meaning of calls, and not by looking at the hand. Steve is right that the info re the double is useful but missing, and Marv is wrong that it is certainly takeout, based on the hand, because the hand does not support a takeout redouble either, nor should be used to decide system. Does it matter? Well, yes. You cannot adjust to 2Sxx-5 if the redouble is a takeout one because it is not a likely result: but you could if the redouble is strong. ------- Ron Johnson wrote: >On the information presented I'm thinking C+E hearing too. UI >knowingly used. People use UI a lot without particularly realising what they are doing. Generally a C&E hearing is far too high a punishment for use of UI - gentle encouragement is better. This was a collegiate KO teams final, not the Bermuda Bowl. If you think this case is blatant, then a PP on top of any adjustment to help educate would seem suitable rather than C&E hearing. At the level of Ron's bridge, a C&E hearing becomes a more reasonable outcome. ------ Robin Barker wrote: >> From: root >> Auction: (NS vulnerable, no screens, collegiate KO teams final) >> North East South West a: 15+ to 18 hcp >> 1NT-a Dbl Pass 2H-b b: alerted, explained as transfer to S >> Pass 2S Dbl Pass-c c: long hesitation (not disputed) >> Pass Rdbl-d Pass 2NT-e d: long hesitation (not disputed) >> Pass Pass Dbl [end] e: director called at this point. >> [1] Your opinions based just on the auction? >e => Pass is surely a LA here. Now this is the problem: if redouble is takeout then pass surely cannot be an LA. >> [3] What is your opinion of the actual ruling, that result stands? > >I hope it didn't allow EW to win. Me too! ----- Tim West-meads wrote: >I don't believe a redouble in this situation can ever be anything but >"Help" some sort of 5-0-4-4 in desperation maybe. Certainly a deeply >ingrained "meta-rule" of mine is - Never play a redoubled contract if >there is any doubt in your mind whatsoever. Only a complete idiot would >redouble with eight tricks in spades and limited defence against 3m. I believe this bridge logic impeccable .... >I can't see anything other than 2Sx-5 as justified. .... but this does not follow. As a TD, you need to know how *this* pair play redouble, not how you think it should be played. ----- B.Y. wrote: >I understand that the misdefense was not gross from what I heard. Good. No question of disallowing the NOs their rights. > EW >had no agreements on the redouble (as might be expected). This `NTHU >Cup' had been one of the more prestigious collegiate events in Taiwan, >but the eventual winners complained because they had been on the short >end of a great many rulings over a long weekend; this one generated a >lot of bad will because the winners considered the directors --- not >students, but all from the City of Hsinchu where the Industrial Park >(Taiwan's Silicon Valley), is located as is NTHU and NCTU, two of the >nation's better universities--- to have been playing local favorites. Of course, we cannot say that from this hand: all we can say is that the Directors were completely wrong. The only questions on this hand that are in any doubt are: [1] Was the defence irrational, wild or gambling? No, according to your reply above. [2] Was the meaning of redouble for takeout? No, according to your reply above. The ruling of 2Sxx-5 seems fairly routine then. However, players are fairly loath to leave redoubles in with near-zero HCP, and I could easily be persuaded that passing the redouble is not a likely outcome: then I rule 2Sx-5. >The `ACBL national directors' were consulted by a friend in the States >because he had been appalled at the ruling himself and decided to seek >outside opinion, but getting a split result from two questions ... .... leads to the obvious conclusion: Roger Pewick wrote: >I might get the impression there are some scary TDs out there . -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 2 23:24:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:24:24 +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 XAA19830 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:24:15 +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 11tVHF-0008dt-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:24:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:28:07 +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> <38426371.5BEA3A06@village.uunet.be> <025701bf3aaf$531a8d00$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$0BPKJA65FR4EwkC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <03c901bf3c31$f7061be0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <03c901bf3c31$f7061be0$6a30d2cc@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 hope we can at least agree, David, that the sort of TD ruling or AC >decision which assesses a PP for MI that caused no damage, but no PP >when damage has been redressed, is wrong. No, I have never agreed with that. I believe that controlling bad procedures is what PPs are for: MI that is being adjusted already has an effective persuasion method built in: MI with no adjustment does not. I am not interested in the "It is not fair" argument because you cannot issue a PP for every case and to issue a PP for no cases is undesirable. I am happy with fairly random small PPs which I believe are good for the game. I believe if that type of PP was being assessed regularly in the ACBL for CC offences you would find the procedures would work better. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 2 23:54:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:38:28 +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 XAA19939 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:38:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-126.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.126]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07834 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:38:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3846636C.9E168E2F@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 13:17:48 +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: L70 - language problem References: <38464DD6.3BF61396@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > L70C2: > > "(...) it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was > unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand (...)" > > Can any English speaking person clarify to me the meaning > of this little "at all likely" bit? Does this mean "very likely"? > Thanks. > > -- No, specifically not ! It means - even if there is just a little doubt in the TD's mind that the player can have forgotten the card - he is ruled against. The TD must be very convinced that the player knows not all trumps have gone, before he accepts the statement "of course I know there is a trump out". A good example is a player who claims 13 tricks before drawing trumps even once, but holding, say, 10 of them with the five honours. It is not "at all likely" that he has forgotten them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 00:44:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 00:44:37 +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 AAA20099 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 00:44:28 +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 IAA18349 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:44:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991202084613.007258dc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 08:46:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Boston NABC Appeals Case 1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Eric Landau > >I agree with letting the result stand. The tempo of E's double suggests only that he is uncertain whether to continue to compete (the UI suggests that W might wish to "undouble"), but doesn't make it any more or less likely that it is for either takeout or penalty. Once he has competed, W's call was not affected by that fact that he was reluctant to do so. It looks to me like E has responded normally to W's takeout double. So even if you believe that P is an LA for E, I don't see it as having been demonstrably suggested by E's tempo. The above makes no sense; my apologies for sending it without checking it thoroughly. The last two sentences should read, "It looks to me like W has responded normally to E's takeout double. So even if you believe that P is an LA for W,..." Thanks to Marv for calling this to my attention. 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 Dec 3 00:51:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:38:28 +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 XAA19940 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:38:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-126.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.126]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07847 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:38:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38466378.659A2D9D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 13:18:00 +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: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <008001bf3c53$3ad430c0$615e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > > > Let's say that two beginners play a 2C response to 1NT as natural. > We normally play double of Stayman as "clubs", but in the unlikely > event that 2C was natural, double would be takeout. An example of > "multi meaning bids as a defense against artificial opponent bids", > you could say. > > The bidding goes 1NT by my LHO. Pass by my partner. 2C by RHO. > Alert. I don't ask, since it is many years since I have come across 2C > natural, and many opponents since then have alerted 2C as Puppet > Stayman or whatever. I double with my fistful of clubs. All pass. > You know 2C is natural, so should your partner. So counting on him to not consider your double to be take-out, is a serious gamble. If it works, good on you, but I would not advise it, never mind the ethical considerations. > I believe that you say I have committed an infraction. I think I just got > lucky. And the next time I play this pair, I will ask about 2C, just to see > if they've switched to Stayman yet. Then I double, this time for takeout. > Have I committed an infraction? I have not intended to. Which Law > have I broken? > > All of this I have done quite innocently. How do the Laws distinguish > between me, asking or not asking because of the context of my > previous experience of the opponents and bridge in general, and the > person with malice aforethought? > Well, good alert regulations might help ! Sorry Konrad, but it simply had to be said ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 02:18:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:18:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe37.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA20465 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:18:27 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 96071 invoked by uid 65534); 2 Dec 1999 15:17:46 -0000 Message-ID: <19991202151746.96070.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.145] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> <38452BA9.F048160C@meteo.fr> <19991201191451.40748.qmail@hotmail.com> <38463ECC.34E65E96@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:17:35 -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: Jean Pierre Rocafort Cc: blml Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 3:41 AM Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Roger Pewick a écrit : > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jean Pierre Rocafort > Cc: BLML > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 8:07 AM > Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit > > Konrad Ciborowski a écrit : Would you agree with me if I say I only meant that a player is not entitled to know, by the means of extraneous information, that his partner has misunderstood an opponent's agreement? JP Rocafort Invoking the words 'extraneous information' is a bit of troublemaking if it refers to something other than the calls and plays. Extraneous information I would think might come by authorized means such as from the opponents. I should think that part of the game is gaining information by appropriate means. I do not think it fair to use information from inappropriate means. However, I believe there is a distinction between know and know by inference that is relevant to what you are saying? You are entitled to utilize inferences from information .gained by authorized means. [You might or might not make inferences from UI, but I feel you are not entitled to use them.] I do not feel it is right for the law to compel the creation of inferences from UI for the purpose of precluding the player from maximizing his score- even though this is precisely what L16 requires . I risk pointing out that the effect of an alert procedure is to create otherwise improper communication between partners, hence UI. It is felt that the UI laws deal with the effects of that UI and that the side making the alerts should suffer the consequences, for the purpose of effecting full disclosure. Perhaps you claim that the alert procedure establishes a burden upon the opponents of those who make alertable calls. I point out that such a burden falls heaviest upon those of least experience. Such an assertion places the unfairest of burdens upon the novice and the unfairest advantage to the expert. What you speak of is the concealed/ encrypted understanding [CPU] which is forbidden by law. It seems that you feel that NS behavior is evidence that a CPU has been utilized. If so then it should be rooted out. It is my intense belief that the rules ought not compel a player to manufacture UI, but if so it best be the barest minimum. Arguments such as yours point to part of my reasons. My belief extends to the right of a player without UI to take any legal action regardless of merit when UI is not available him. I am swayed to extend if not the right, then the qualified privilege, when the rules impose UI instigated by the opponents. To that end, the dissonance created by the alert procedure twists the mind as a pretzel. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 02:45:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:45:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA20523 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:45:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehar.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.91]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA26573 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:44:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991202104211.00746384@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 10:42:11 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <38463CB1.65168DF3@meteo.fr> References: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> <3.0.1.32.19991201214745.0076bec4@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:32 AM 12/2/99 +0100, Jean Pierre wrote: >I am afraid the dWs has spread doubt; an "agreement" is not the same >thing as an "intended meaning at the instant the bid is made". In principle, we agree. I am not a devotee of the dWs. >The agreement preexists before the bid is made, before the deal is played. I >think, in this instance, there should have been no doubt, no need to >evaluate evidence if somebody had asked NS, one hour before the >beginning of play, for their agreement about this double. No. If NS were asked "what is your agreement about double in this auction?", they would, I expect and presume, independently confirm that it showed spades, based on their assumption that the 2S bid was artificial. That is the situation they found themselves in, in part _because_ of the alert of a natural call. That is a different situation from hypothetical question of how NS bid over a natural 2S bid. Look at it another way. Suppose South _does_ ask, and is told (wrongly) that the bid is a transfer. He makes his double to show spades. In fact, just as in the present case, the bid and the agreement are both to the effect that the 2S bid is natural, but NS are surely entitled to proceed on the assumption that 2S was artificial, since that's what they have been told, and to bid based on their agreement in that case. In other words, the actual meaning, either intended or agreed, of East's 2S call is irrelevant to defining the meaning of the NS agreement. If they are mutually under the impression that the 2S bid is artificial, then their agreement about the double is that it shows spades. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 03:51:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 03:24:44 +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 DAA20610 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 03:24:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from p20s07a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.167.33] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11tZ1N-0006eO-00; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:23:54 -0800 Message-ID: <002801bf3ce1$73cbafa0$21a793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "Gary Blaiss" , "Egden Wignall & Co." , "Panos Gerontopoulos" Subject: Code of Practice (Review arrangements). Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:09:11 -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; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:06:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-137.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA10868 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:53:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:53:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Boston NABC Appeals Case 1 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe pass is a LA. Even if takeout, partner is showing a good hand. He bid and doubled after I passed! And perhaps my judgement doesn't measure up in this forum, but how, pray tell, do NS some to 9 tricks in 3CX? This appear to have 6 clubs and two hearts. I see no ruffs in the dummy. They will only get 9 tricks if East panics and cashes the DA. I would expect normal defense to start with two top spade honors (although a low trump might be better). North ruffs, pulls trump, and leads a heart towards dummy. Whenever East decides to take his HA, he gets out a small spade. Perhaps cashing the DA at some point is "at all probable", but it certainly doesn't seem "likely". Check that -- it doesn't even seem "at all probable". I doubt many in flight C would cash the DA and this game is supposed to be of a better standard. Bruce Steve Willner wrote: : From: "Marvin L. French" :> APPEALS CASE 1 :> Passing is illogical? I'll quote Kaplan again: :> :> "Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, :> absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus, the :> score should be adjusted...." : While I tend to agree that passing is a LA in the ACBL, nobody seems to : have addressed "suggested over another." Is it obvious that the slow : double suggests pulling? I would have thought the primary meaning of : double would be takeout or general values and the most likely : distribution 5431. The hesitation suggests some other action was : considered, but we don't know whether it might have been to bid a suit : (even diamonds) or to pass. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 04:18:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:18:23 +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 EAA20786 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:18:16 +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 MAA17422 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA19742 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:18:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:18:43 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912021718.MAA19742@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L70 - language problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Konrad Ciborowski > Can any English speaking person clarify to me the meaning > of this little "at all likely" bit? Does this mean "very likely"? We might draw an analogy to "at all probable" in L12C2. The ACBL LC interprets this as one chance in six. While a probability is not the best way to look at L70, the meaning is along the same lines. That is, the burden of proof is very definitely on the claimer. We will assume he has forgotten the trump unless there's a convincing reason to believe that he hasn't, but we don't demand proof sufficient to remove all doubt. The proof, if any, will normally be found in the line of play adopted. As in David's example, a declarer who hasn't drawn any trumps most likely knows there are a few lurking about. He _may_ have forgotten, but that's "not at all likely." On the other hand, a declarer who draws a couple of rounds and then moves on to other business may very well have miscounted. He may not have, but he needs to give very convincing evidence to have the ruling go in his favor. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 04:29:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:29:02 +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 EAA20845 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:28:54 +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 RAA28772 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 17:28:15 GMT Message-ID: <3846AC36.994D0D2E@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 18:28:22 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3844F712.CE3418A4@omicron.comarch.pl> <3.0.1.32.19991201214745.0076bec4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991202104211.00746384@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" a écrit : > > At 10:32 AM 12/2/99 +0100, Jean Pierre wrote: > >I am afraid the dWs has spread doubt; an "agreement" is not the same > >thing as an "intended meaning at the instant the bid is made". > > In principle, we agree. I am not a devotee of the dWs. > > >The agreement preexists before the bid is made, before the deal is played. I > >think, in this instance, there should have been no doubt, no need to > >evaluate evidence if somebody had asked NS, one hour before the > >beginning of play, for their agreement about this double. > > No. If NS were asked "what is your agreement about double in this > auction?", they would, I expect and presume, independently confirm that it > showed spades, based on their assumption that the 2S bid was artificial. > That is the situation they found themselves in, in part _because_ of the > alert of a natural call. That is a different situation from hypothetical > question of how NS bid over a natural 2S bid. > > Look at it another way. Suppose South _does_ ask, and is told (wrongly) > that the bid is a transfer. He makes his double to show spades. In fact, > just as in the present case, the bid and the agreement are both to the > effect that the 2S bid is natural, but NS are surely entitled to proceed on > the assumption that 2S was artificial, since that's what they have been > told, and to bid based on their agreement in that case. > I think, the agreement is still take-out; south unwillingly violated his agreement because of MI, and is entitled to redress if damaged; North understood his partner's violation but only by means of AI (West's MI), no infraction. On a third way, suppose South is given MI (2S artificial) and doubles, North is given the correct information (spades) and bids 3H to land in a 5-1 fit. Will not TD allow redress on the base of a mistaken bid (double) by South, due to MI and a logical subsequent bid by South? > In other words, the actual meaning, either intended or agreed, of East's 2S > call is irrelevant to defining the meaning of the NS agreement. If they are > mutually under the impression that the 2S bid is artificial, then their > agreement about the double is that it shows spades. I understand we disagree on the subject because of controversial feelings: some people don't like to see players to be compelled to take actions they don't intent because of obscure meanings of opponents' artificial bids they don't care to know. Other ones (or maybe only me) don't like to see players able to take advantage of opponents' artificial bids by giving 2 different meanings to the same bid according to extraneous circumstances. I can't see anything to add to my thinking that the Laws favour my approach, but I would appreciate new opinions. Incidentally, somebody knows the solution to this mess: I once read a very clever convention (by Philipp Martin, I believe) used when partner opens 1NT and RHO bids something, in which all bids refer to RHO's named suit and in no way to the meaning of his bid. JP Rocafort > > Mike Dennis -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Dec 3 04:30:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:30:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA20879 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:30:08 +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 ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:29:57 -0800 Message-ID: <045b01bf3cea$d2d5bd20$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <008001bf3c53$3ad430c0$615e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:26:18 -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: > Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> > >>..........Now, Poland doesn't have any special alert regulations like > >> ACBL. So the only regulation remains the definition of an alert in > >> TFLB............ > >>.......... Just try to make a ruling only with the Law Book > >> in your hand. Would we have a chance? > >> > >....... This is not so uncommon an infraction, using multi-meaning bids > >as a defense against artificial opponent bids: I use to play a system in > >which the 1C opening means "spades"; when LHO holds 4441 distribution, > >he doubles without asking and when he holds 1444, he may also make a > >take-out double, once he has asked! Fortunately the Laws protect the > >game against this form of behaviour. > > > > Which Law? 73B. Illegal communication with partner. > > Let's say that two beginners play a 2C response to 1NT as natural. > We normally play double of Stayman as "clubs", but in the unlikely > event that 2C was natural, double would be takeout. An example of > "multi meaning bids as a defense against artificial opponent bids", > you could say. > > The bidding goes 1NT by my LHO. Pass by my partner. 2C by RHO. > Alert. I don't ask, since it is many years since I have come across 2C > natural, and many opponents since then have alerted 2C as Puppet > Stayman or whatever. I double with my fistful of clubs. All pass. > > I believe that you say I have committed an infraction. I think I just got > lucky. And the next time I play this pair, I will ask about 2C, just to see > if they've switched to Stayman yet. Then I double, this time for takeout. > Have I committed an infraction? No, assuming that your selective questioning of the Alert is not solely for partner's benefit, and does not communicate the nature of your hand. Of course if you question the Alert only with long clubs or short clubs and support for the other suits, that violates L73B. > I have not intended to. Which Law have I broken? None, under the same assumptions. > All of this I have done quite innocently. How do the Laws distinguish > between me, asking or not asking because of the context of my > previous experience of the opponents and bridge in general, and the > person with malice aforethought? > They don't. The Laws cannot be written in a way that prevents cheating. As long as the "context" does not include the nature of your hand, you're okay. The trouble is, selective questioning is so often based on a player's holding that it looks bad (and may say something to partner) even when innocent. Questioning every Alert gets pretty tiresome, however. There are many ways that an NCBO can alleviate the problem: 1. No Alerts of near-universal meanings of a call. The ACBL required Alerts of negative doubles at one time, but when they became rather standard made them non-Alertable. Good. 2. Increased use of Announcements. What harm can come from Announcing a 2C response to 1NT as "Natural, signoff," or Announcing any call whose meaning is clearly shown on the CC? 3. Increased use of "Delayed Alerts" for calls that are unlikely to need explanation until the auction is over. 4. Allow players to ask opponents to explain Alertable bids (i.e., Announce the meanings) in their auction as it goes along, rather than go through the "Alert"--"Please explain" routine. Perhaps others can add to, or subtract from, this list. Marv (Marvin L. French) Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 05:07:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 05:07:18 +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 FAA20966 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 05:07:11 +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; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:07:01 -0800 Message-ID: <047901bf3cf0$000af940$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Markus Buchhorn" References: <3.0.32.19991202141421.00f29da0@acsys.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: BLML in Digest form? (was Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:06:42 -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 No digest, please. We have a delete key that can deal with individual messages we don't want to examine, and most of us have a filter system for subjects of no interest. I just returned from an 8-day trip, found hundreds of messages in my inbox, and was surprised how little time it took me to deal with them. Delete, delete, delete for the majority. I have tried digests on other mailing lists, and found them to be a pain. Markus, some mailing lists offer the option of going either way. Not possible? Marv (Marvin L. French) ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Buchhorn To: B.Y. ; Cc: Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 7:14 PM Subject: BLML in Digest form? (was Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit) > > At 02:50 2/12/99 +0800, B.Y. wrote: > >P.S. Is it possible for me for the bridge-laws mailing list to be in > > digest form, one digest per so many kilobytes or one digest per > > day (or half-day)? The number of messages is quite large ... > > This came up once before - a few people asked about it, but nobody seemed > too fussed about it not being available then. Maybe the traffic has > increased sufficiently to make it of interest again ? > > I can set things up to provide a digest version of BLML - this would be > effectively a separate list, with replies going to the single-message form > of BLML. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 05:28:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 05:28:46 +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 FAA21031 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 05:28:38 +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 ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:28:29 -0800 Message-ID: <049d01bf3cf2$ff10b360$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <383543A4.F8147391@village.uunet.be><001d01bf3314$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><025701bf3aaf$531a8d00$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com><$0BPKJA65FR4EwkC@blakjak.demon.co.uk><03c901bf3c31$f7061be0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: The De Wael School, an explanation Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:27:19 -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 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 hope we can at least agree, David, that the sort of TD ruling or AC > >decision which assesses a PP for MI that caused no damage, but no PP > >when damage has been redressed, is wrong. > > No, I have never agreed with that. I believe that controlling bad > procedures is what PPs are for: MI that is being adjusted already has an > effective persuasion method built in: MI with no adjustment does not. > > I am not interested in the "It is not fair" argument because you > cannot issue a PP for every case and to issue a PP for no cases is > undesirable. I am happy with fairly random small PPs which I believe > are good for the game. > > I believe if that type of PP was being assessed regularly in the ACBL > for CC offences you would find the procedures would work better. > This makes clear that you use PPs to augment the perceived insufficiency of the laws pertaining to MI and UI. All I ask is that the lawmakers make clear in the next revision that this approach is acceptable, perhaps with an additional item in L90B: 9. Infractions Not Adequately Penalized commission of an infraction for which no penalty is prescribed, or for which the penalty is considered by the Director to be insufficient punishment. Marv (Marvin L. French) aka Cato From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 05:44:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 05:44:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA21090 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 05:44:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va448989 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:43:35 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-109-23.tmns.net.au ([139.134.109.23]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Hot-MailRouter V2.6f 15/28185); 03 Dec 1999 04:43:34 Message-ID: <000301bf3cf4$fab95540$176d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 05:40:52 +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 Herman De Wael wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >> >> Let's say that two beginners play a 2C response to 1NT as natural. >> We normally play double of Stayman as "clubs", but in the unlikely >> event that 2C was natural, double would be takeout. An example of >> "multi meaning bids as a defense against artificial opponent bids", >> you could say. >> >> The bidding goes 1NT by my LHO. Pass by my partner. 2C by RHO. >> Alert. I don't ask, since it is many years since I have come across 2C >> natural, and many opponents since then have alerted 2C as Puppet >> Stayman or whatever. I double with my fistful of clubs. All pass. >> > >You know 2C is natural, so should your partner. No I don't. At the table after the alert of 2C, I assume quite normally, as almost everyone else in Sydney does too, that the alert means that 2C is Extended Stayman (still very widely played and alerted in Sydney), or some other artificiality such as 2C Relay for exact shape, rather than Simple Stayman which would not be alerted. I am in fact so certain that 2C is artificial that it is not worth bothering to ask. Years of exposure to opponents playing Relay Systems means that in Australia, we all have become accustomed to *not asking* about the meaning of every alerted call. Otherwise the game collapses into a morass of questions and answers, perhaps 10 or 15 times in some auctions. In my hypothetical example, I don't ask about the meaning of the 2C response to 1NT because I virtually know it is artificial. I simply double to show clubs. In practice not only I, but most Sydney players, would do the same. My main point was that a few weeks later when I play the same pair again, having learnt from my previous experience, I will surely ask about 2C if the same situation arises again. To check whether they've learnt Stayman or even Extended Stayman, by then. So would most Sydney players. And there should IMO not be UI considerations for my partner (nor for the partner of all the other Sydney players), because my enquiry (and theirs) has no bearing on the cards in my (their) hand. It is simply that now I (??) have a reason to want to understand what the 2C bid means. As I wrote all this, I started to understand the cleverness of the EBU Alerting Regulations (ARs), i.e. simply alerting if it's not natural, with some codicils added. My situation is therefore confined to WBF, ACBL, Polish, Australian and other games which do not use EBU-style ARs. And what is the point of this discussion? I believe that to *ask or not ask* about an alert is not, and should not be, UI. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 06:28:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:28:09 +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 GAA21188 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:28:02 +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 OAA22926 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:27:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA19870 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:28:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:28:28 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912021928.OAA19870@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > Years of exposure to opponents playing Relay Systems means that in > Australia, we all have become accustomed to *not asking* about the > meaning of every alerted call. Otherwise the game collapses into a > morass of questions and answers, perhaps 10 or 15 times in some > auctions. Would "Always ask on the first round" be playable? Perhaps with the understanding that the normal reply would be nothing more than "Artificial and forcing" (or similar)? > I believe that to *ask or not ask* about an alert is not, and should not be, > UI. I hope this last was written in haste or maybe in jest. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 06:39:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:39:25 +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 GAA21234 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:39:17 +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 ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:38:44 -0800 Message-ID: <04dc01bf3cfc$ce81c720$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Boston NABC Appeals Case 1 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:37:32 -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 Bruce Moore wrote: > : From: "Marvin L. French" APPEALS CASE 1 Bd: 13 Rick Goldstein Dlr: North S J Vul: Both H 8 3 2 D K 6 2 C K Q 10 7 5 4 Paul Nason Bud Biswas S 10 7 5 S A K Q 8 3 H J 10 7 H A 9 6 5 D J 9 8 7 3 D A Q C 8 2 C J 6 Laura Brill S 9 6 4 2 H K Q 4 D 10 5 4 C A 9 3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - Pass 1S Pass Pass 2C 2H 3C Pass Pass Dbl (1) Pass 3S All Pass (1) Break in tempo > I believe pass is a LA. Even if takeout, partner is showing a good > hand. He bid and doubled after I passed! And perhaps my judgement > doesn't measure up in this forum, but how, pray tell, do NS some to > 9 tricks in 3CX? > > This appear to have 6 clubs and two hearts. I see no ruffs in the > dummy. They will only get 9 tricks if East panics and cashes the DA. > > I would expect normal defense to start with two top spade honors > (although a low trump might be better). North ruffs, pulls trump, and > leads a heart towards dummy. Whenever East decides to take his HA, he > gets out a small spade. > > Perhaps cashing the DA at some point is "at all probable", but it > certainly doesn't seem "likely". Check that -- it doesn't even seem > "at all probable". I doubt many in flight C would cash the DA and this > game is supposed to be of a better standard. You overlook the fact that East's marked ace of diamonds is doubleton, and therefore nine tricks are readily available, declarer losing a heart, a spade, and two diamonds. I'll take this opportunity to repeat my belief that East would have doubled 2C for takeout (implying four hearts) with a 5=4=3=1 or 5=4=4=0 hand. The case for a possible takeout meaning for the double of 3C would be much stronger if the auction had gone: 1S-P-P-2C 2D-3C-P-P Dbl In this case opener might well have a 5=3=4=1 hand. The use of = signs to denote an exact distributional pattern S=H=D=C is a *Bridge World* practice that deserves universal adoption. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 06:42:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:42:59 +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 GAA21256 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:42:49 +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 OAA23520 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:42:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA19889 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:43:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:43:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912021943.OAA19889@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: BLML in Digest form? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Markus Buchhorn > I can set things up to provide a digest version of BLML - this would be > effectively a separate list, with replies going to the single-message form > of BLML. Another mailing list I'm on offers a digest option. One can receive either every message immediately, as now for BLML, or a day's accumulated traffic in a single message sent at midnight. (I think if a day's accumulation exceeds some set amount, the digest gets sent out right away, and accumulation starts over. That seldom if ever has happened.) There are in effect two separate mailing lists. One can subscribe to the immediate messages, the digests, or (should one wish to for some bizarre reason) both. When sending, one simply uses a single address, and the message goes to both the immediate list and to the digest. The main problem is that of replies to the digest. Some people quote and send back the whole day's digest when replying to a single article. Then somebody quotes and sends back that, and so on. We can end up with hundreds of lines, of which only a few are new. In order to avoid this, one must snip replies quite carefully. Another problem is that the subject line on a reply is that of the digest, not the individual article to which one is replying. One can always copy the correct subject line, of course, but many people don't. Other than these problems, the digest works pretty well. Markus will have to decide whether the benefit and the potential problems are worth his effort. Those with a strong desire for a digest might consider emailing him. I personally am happy enough with the immediate messages, but I can see that others would prefer a digest. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 07:04:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:44:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21277 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:44:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:42:42 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991202143848.00881410@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 14:38:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Regulation of evaluation methods Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Does an NCBO have the authority to compel players to evaluate their hands in any particular manner? Or putting it more bluntly, does the ACBL Board of Directors have the authority to force players to count their points? What if a player wants to use a different pointcount system, 12-9-7-5-3 for A-K-Q-J-10*, say, because he believes it gives a more accurate estimate of the strength of his hand? Can the League prevent him from doing that? Or, can it require him to recompute his totals, using the pointcount the League endorses, to make sure the "12-9 system" doesn't violate a convention chart that the the Board has prescribed? I am not asking about disclosure. Given the prevalence of reliance on 4-3-2-1, it is surely reasonable for the NCBO to require disclosure in those terms -- for one notrump, for example, something like, "We use the 12-9 count, and our 1NT opening shows 28-35 points under that count; it comes out to about 15-18 regular points." (Or a convention-card notation along the lines of "approximately 15-18, but don't hold us to it.") I wonder whether some of the current regulations are Lawful. The one preventing the use of conventions when partner's 1NT opening bid is wide-range is a case in point: they have the authority to ban the use of conventions under certain circumstances (since they have plenary authority to regulate the use of conventions). But what if their exercise of that authority implicitly (or explicitly, for that matter) requires a player to use a particular evaluation method? Does that overstep their authority to regulate the use of conventions? Or is there some other source of authority for regulating evaluation techniques? Also, what is an average hand? This is relevant because the Laws allow regulation of opening one bids which could show a hand that is a king below average strength. Couldn't an argument be made that the average hand is: S - 876 H - 876 D - 876 C - 9765? This might also be an average hand: S - AKQJ1098765432 H - none D - none C - none There are possible variations here, such as: S - AKQ H - J109 D - 876 C - 5432 A king less than that last average hand is: S - AQ H - J109 D - 876 C - 5432 But that hand has only 12 cards, so something must be added back in. Perhaps: S - AQ2 H - J109 D - 874 C - 5432 This one has a king less than the last average hand, and also a six less; but it has a deuce and a four more. OK, this may be silly. But, just what is "a hand of a king or more below average strength"? Tim * I'm making no claim that this evaluation method is better or worse than 4-3-2-1, just an example of a different method. Nor, that 28-35 as stated in the next paragraph actually maps to 15-18. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 07:52:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:52:42 +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 HAA21406 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:52:36 +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 JAA10071 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:52:30 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991203095309.00960460@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 09:53:09 +1300 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Michael Albert Subject: Hand notation In-Reply-To: <04dc01bf3cfc$ce81c720$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > >The use of = signs to denote an exact distributional pattern S=H=D=C is a >*Bridge World* practice that deserves universal adoption. > As a (pure) mathematician I enjoy special privilege when it comes to quibbling about notation. While it's certainly a good idea to have (at least) two notations for hands, one specifying suit order and the other not, I find this particular choice both bulky (in terms of space used) and ugly. And of course I have a hard time reading "=" as anything other than "is equal to" which leads to cognitive dissonance when faced with 5=4=3=1. Quibblers of course also have an obligation to present their own favoured alternatives, so that others may quibble in turn. Mine are: 5431 5 spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, 1 club (5431) That shape, no suits specified (54)31 54 majors (either order), 3 diamonds, 1 club and so on ... --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 3 08:09:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:09:57 +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 IAA21489 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:09:50 +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 ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:09:41 -0800 Message-ID: <050901bf3d09$813509c0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.32.19991202141421.00f29da0@acsys.anu.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.19991202144238.00867a30@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: BLML in Digest form? (was Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:59:50 -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 Message to me from Tim Goodwin: > At 10:06 AM 12/2/99 -0800, you wrote: > >Markus, some mailing lists offer the option of going either way. Not > >possible? > > That's what he meant by: > > >> I can set things up to provide a digest version of BLML - this would > >be > >> effectively a separate list, with replies going to the > >single-message form > >> of BLML. > > Individuals would have the option of going either way. > Well, then, there's no problem. To each his own. Chacun a son gout, cada uno lo suyo,... I think I would switch to the digest when off on vacation. It strikes me that non-participating "lurkers" might prefer a digest. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 08:33:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:33:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21550 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:33:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (ip116.kansas-city4.mo.pub-ip.psi.net [38.27.35.116]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02761 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 13:33:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991202152610.00a26130@earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 15:30:22 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: BLML in Digest form? In-Reply-To: <199912021943.OAA19889@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >The main problem is that of replies to the digest. Some people quote >and send back the whole day's digest when replying to a single >article. Then somebody quotes and sends back that, and so on. We can >end up with hundreds of lines, of which only a few are new. In order >to avoid this, one must snip replies quite carefully. I'm on a list that sets a maximum message size, specifically to avoid that problem. It works. I don't know whether whether majordomo, BLML's list software, can do that. >Another problem >is that the subject line on a reply is that of the digest, not the >individual article to which one is replying. One can always copy the >correct subject line, of course, but many people don't. That's a problem without a technological solution. >Markus will have to decide whether the benefit and the potential >problems are worth his effort. Those with a strong desire for a digest >might consider emailing him. I personally am happy enough with the >immediate messages, but I can see that others would prefer a digest. What he said. Best regards (and just home from Boston), Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 09:00:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:00:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp.knology.net (IDENT:qmailr@smtp.knology.net [209.192.63.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA21625 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:00:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 32754 invoked from network); 2 Dec 1999 22:01:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO default.mont.hybrid.knology.net) (209.192.53.171) by 209.192.63.20 with SMTP; 2 Dec 1999 22:01:53 -0000 Message-ID: <047101bf3d10$426a5860$ab35c0d1@mont.hybrid.knology.net> From: "Bob Lake" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <3.0.32.19991202141421.00f29da0@acsys.anu.edu.au> <3.0.6.32.19991202144238.00867a30@mail.maine.rr.com> <050901bf3d09$813509c0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: BLML in Digest form? (was Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:57:41 -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 am an interested lurker and would very much like a digest form. Thanks, Bob Robert C. Lake, Sr. 3206 Covered Bridge Drive Montgomery, AL 36116 Voice: (334) 279-8185 EMAIL: rlake@mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 2:59 PM Subject: Re: BLML in Digest form? (was Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit) > Message to me from Tim Goodwin: > > > At 10:06 AM 12/2/99 -0800, you wrote: > > >Markus, some mailing lists offer the option of going either way. Not > > >possible? > > > > That's what he meant by: > > > > >> I can set things up to provide a digest version of BLML - this would > > >be > > >> effectively a separate list, with replies going to the > > >single-message form > > >> of BLML. > > > > Individuals would have the option of going either way. > > > Well, then, there's no problem. To each his own. Chacun a son gout, cada uno > lo suyo,... > > I think I would switch to the digest when off on vacation. It strikes me > that non-participating "lurkers" might prefer a digest. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 09:30:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:30:56 +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 JAA21744 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:30:44 +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 RAA12689; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 17:30:34 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991202143848.00881410@mail.maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 17:29:13 -0500 To: Tim Goodwin , Bridge Laws From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:38 PM -0500 12/2/99, Tim Goodwin wrote: >Does an NCBO have the authority to compel players to evaluate their hands >in any particular manner? Or putting it more bluntly, does the ACBL Board >of Directors have the authority to force players to count their points? I don't think there is really any such authority under the Laws; the ACBL cannot prevent players from using judgment. And, in general, it doesn't; there is just the specific point issue of 10 HCP minimum for a 1NT. In any other case, judgment is allowed even if it causes regulations to be violated. (For example, if you play a 5-11 range for yoru weak 2S opening, you may open it on KJT9xx T9x xxx x without losing the right to play conventional responses.) >I am not asking about disclosure. Given the prevalence of reliance on >4-3-2-1, it is surely reasonable for the NCBO to require disclosure in >those terms. Agreed, and there are some common examples. When I play Jacoby 2NT, for example, I explain the sequence 1H-2NT-3H as "no singleton or void, and five or fewer losers; usually equivalent to 17 or more HCP." >Also, what is an average hand? This is relevant because the Laws allow >regulation of opening one bids which could show a hand that is a king below >average strength. An average hand is intended here to mean average in high-card values. For example, if you evaluate hands by the losing-trick count, an opening bid requires seven losers, but AQxxxxx x xx xxxx, despite its seven losers, is below average strength, and bidding 1S on this hand should be subject to regulation. The average hand in high-card values is a hand with one card of each rank, and a hand is a king below that average if replacing a low spot card in the hand by a king would not make it above average, according to whatever system you use for evaluating high cards. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 09:42:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:42:02 +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 JAA21776 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:41:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.146.115] (mu-146115.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.146.115]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id WQY0MCQD; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 16:41:41 -0600 X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991202143848.00881410@mail.maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 16:51:02 -0600 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The 12-9-7-5-3 point count (for AKQJT) gives 144 points in a standard 52 card deck. The 4321 count gives 40 HCP in the deck. On a proportional basis, (15/40)x144 = 54 points for a minimum (15 HCP) 1 NT. JTx-QJT-QJT-KQJT (13 HCP) is 62 points while Axx-Axx-Axx-Axxx (16 HCP) is 48 points. So the ACBL would have trouble dealing with a 12-9 bidder who automatically opens 1 NT on the 13 HCP hand and says the 16 HP hand is too weak to open 1 NT. They just wouldn't let [it(?), them(?), you(?)] do it. (Note resolutions of gender problem in last sentence. The Chinese way?) This is a real problem in translating the old Vienna count, as I found when I was reading the English version of Dr. Stern's book on the Vienna system. I think anyone using the Vienna count would now and then run into director calls. Honor trick count (Culbertson) would probably meet the same trouble now. Few under 70 know about it. Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274 Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 10:29:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:29:45 +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 KAA21910 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:29:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.81.114] (helo=swhki5i6) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11tffE-000ICO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:29:28 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01bf3d1d$0b147820$725108c3@swhki5i6> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L70 - language problem Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:12:36 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan To: Bridge Laws Date: 02 December 1999 13:13 Subject: Re: L70 - language problem >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >> L70C2: >> >> "(...) it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was >> unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand (...)" >> >> Can any English speaking person clarify to me the meaning >> of this little "at all likely" bit? Does this mean "very likely"? >> Thanks. >> >> -- > >No, specifically not ! > >It means - even if there is just a little doubt in the TD's >mind that the player can have forgotten the card - he is >ruled against. > +=+ I think we should be just a little careful. The phrase 'just a little doubt' could be slightly misleading. The law does not say 'at all possible' which is what you might understand as 'a little doubt'. The level of doubt required is one step above that; the doubt must be one that it is reasonable to have - on what he knows the Director feels the chance the player has forgotten is not an altogether remote one. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 10:50:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:50:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21982 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:50:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.106]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:50:12 -0800 Message-ID: <051701bf3d1f$e9843760$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Michael Albert" References: <3.0.1.32.19991203095309.00960460@chance.otago.ac.nz> Subject: Re: Hand notation Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:49:41 -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 Michael Albert wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >The use of = signs to denote an exact distributional pattern S=H=D=C is a > >*Bridge World* practice that deserves universal adoption. > > > > As a (pure) mathematician I enjoy special privilege when it comes to > quibbling about notation. While it's certainly a good idea to have (at > least) two notations for hands, one specifying suit order and the other > not, I find this particular choice both bulky (in terms of space used) and > ugly. And of course I have a hard time reading "=" as anything other than > "is equal to" which leads to cognitive dissonance when faced with 5=4=3=1. Perhaps =5=4=3=1 would be more logical, exactly 5, and 4, and 3 and 1. However, that requires another = sign, when the context doesn't require it. > > Quibblers of course also have an obligation to present their own favoured > alternatives, so that others may quibble in turn. Mine are: > > 5431 5 spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, 1 club > (5431) That shape, no suits specified > (54)31 54 majors (either order), 3 diamonds, 1 club > > and so on ... > I would reverse that notation, using the parentheses to indicate exactness. Good idea, Michael, but it is very difficult to get universal acceptance of things like this. Like coining words, it's tough. One really must start by persuading an authoritative publication to use something original in order to get others to adopt it. Jeff Rubens has a good editorial on the subject of bridge jargon in this month's *Bridge World* (BW), in which he advocates the consistent use of "hand" for a single hand, using only "deal" for a set of four hands. I suggest that BLML go along with this. We often see "hand" used when "deal" is meant, which can be confusing. I believe BW was the first to use "strain" for "denomination" (not the right word, Jeff claims), which seems to have taken hold. Jeff's latest proposal is to use "cue-bid" ("actual" understood) for a bid in a strain that an opponent has bid, and "virtual cue-bid" for a bid in a strain that an opponent has shown artificially (e.g., by a transfer bid). Moreover, when a cue-bid is control-showing it takes the name of "control-bid," which can be in a suit not named by an opponent. Hence, in 1S-2C-3S-4C or 1S-2C-3S-4D, both 4C and 4D are control-bids, not cue-bids. (Jeff is big on the use of hyphens in places where many of us would not bother with one. The ACBL's *The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge* makes cuebid one word, which makes sense. That reminds me that matchpoint is also one word, but often seen as two.) Jeff urges the correct usages of "bid" and "call." Most of us are guilty of incorrect usage at times (e.g., "a bid out of turn" should be "a call out of rotation"), but it would be better if we used the right words consistently BW uses "advancer" and "advances" for calls made by the partner of an overcaller or takeout doubler. Danny Kleinman suggests "advancive double" instead of the *Bridge World*'s "extended responsive double" for advancer's takeout double in a sequence like 1H-1S-2H-Dbl to show clubs and diamonds. I like that one. Danny also suggests "invader" for the player who overcalls or doubles an opposing bid for takeout. BW has decided on "intervenor," which is okay I suppose. What's wrong with "buttinski"? It would be better to have two words for overcaller and takeout doubler, but I don't know what they could be. Another of Danny's practices that I like is the use of = signs to separate calls in an unopposed auction: 1S=2H=3C=4H, which indicates that the opponents have done nothing but pass. When showing a two-way auction in text, he separates each set of four calls with a semicolon: 1S-P-2H-3C; 3S-P-4S-P; 6S, all pass. That can be useful. I hate having to mentally separate a long string of calls into sets of four. This sort of thing can be both fun and worthwhile. Let's have some more ideas! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 10:51:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:46:46 +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 JAA21806 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:46:31 +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 11tezI-0005RR-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:46:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:35:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: EBU Logical alternatives References: <000a01bf3c99$5a5a6680$9c5108c3@swhki5i6> In-Reply-To: <000a01bf3c99$5a5a6680$9c5108c3@swhki5i6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >> In short: if I knew what >>a good player would bid on a given hand then I would be a good player. >+=+ A non sequitur. You can have the knowledge > but be inferior as a player if you fail to act upon > it as consistently at the table. > But, this aside, those consulted are asked to > judge accordingly; we are discussing the role > not the qualification of the consultee. There is also the matter of discussion. If three players discuss a situation, they are more likely to reach a correct conclusion than one player on his own. Thus a TD who discusses with other TDs can reach decisions beyond his individual capability. This is one reason I am unhappy with the current idea of Panels instead of ACs at some levels in the ACBL. They consult with good players who often give conflicting advice. The advice would be far better if they got the good players together to discuss it - which is in effect what happens at 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 Fri Dec 3 11:23:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:23:29 +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 LAA22050 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:23:23 +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 NAA16829; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:23:13 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991203132353.00969390@chance.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@chance.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 13:23:53 +1300 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Michael Albert Subject: Re: Hand notation In-Reply-To: <051701bf3d1f$e9843760$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19991203095309.00960460@chance.otago.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:49 PM 12/2/99 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >Michael Albert wrote: > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> > >> >The use of = signs to denote an exact distributional pattern S=H=D=C is a >> >*Bridge World* practice that deserves universal adoption. >> > (*snip*) >> >> Quibblers of course also have an obligation to present their own favoured >> alternatives, so that others may quibble in turn. Mine are: >> >> 5431 5 spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, 1 club >> (5431) That shape, no suits specified >> (54)31 54 majors (either order), 3 diamonds, 1 club >> >> and so on ... >> >I would reverse that notation, using the parentheses to indicate exactness. > (* and cut *) Well, the roundness of ()'s suggests variability. Really truly, what one should use of course are {}'s (braces) for the variable case by analogy with the mathematical usage for sets (unordered collections). Others have pointed out privately (what, you think I'm too sensitive to be publically pilloried?) that 5431 as variable is too entrenched, which I grant; so alternatively use []'s (brackets) for "fixed" which also works symbolically (the straight lines are "hard"), and by analogy with certain mathematical notations. But the "Q" word still applies. Or perhaps it's degenerated into "how many angels ..." 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 Fri Dec 3 11:25:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:25:35 +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 LAA22067 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:25:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp207-108.worldonline.nl [195.241.207.108]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA15437; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:25:09 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <018a01bf3d25$0df35b80$9bc9f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "Michael Albert" Subject: Re: Hand notation Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:26:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>The use of = signs to denote an exact distributional pattern S=H=D=C is a >>*Bridge World* practice that deserves universal adoption. >> > >As a (pure) mathematician I enjoy special privilege when it comes to >quibbling about notation. While it's certainly a good idea to have (at >least) two notations for hands, one specifying suit order and the other >not, I find this particular choice both bulky (in terms of space used) and >ugly. And of course I have a hard time reading "=" as anything other than >"is equal to" which leads to cognitive dissonance when faced with 5=4=3=1. > >Quibblers of course also have an obligation to present their own favoured >alternatives, so that others may quibble in turn. Mine are: > >5431 5 spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, 1 club >(5431) That shape, no suits specified >(54)31 54 majors (either order), 3 diamonds, 1 club > >and so on ... > I would prefer the use of some sort of delimiter, though. Can you tell how many spades there are in a 10102 hand, or in an 11110 ?? Jac From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 11:55:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:46:36 +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 JAA21800 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:46:25 +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 11tezI-0005RT-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:46:10 +0000 Message-ID: <83w$aVB8tmR4EwVU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:52:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: BLML in Digest form? (was Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit) References: <3.0.32.19991202141421.00f29da0@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19991202141421.00f29da0@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: > >At 02:50 2/12/99 +0800, B.Y. wrote: >>P.S. Is it possible for me for the bridge-laws mailing list to be in >> digest form, one digest per so many kilobytes or one digest per >> day (or half-day)? The number of messages is quite large ... > >This came up once before - a few people asked about it, but nobody seemed >too fussed about it not being available then. Maybe the traffic has >increased sufficiently to make it of interest again ? > >I can set things up to provide a digest version of BLML - this would be >effectively a separate list, with replies going to the single-message form >of BLML. > >The problem I see is that it is quite hard to effectively thread multiple >messages, and also reply to individual messages in a digest - unless your >mailreader splits them back into individual messages. But in that case you >have not gained anything with the digest version over the single-message >version ? Is it more comfortable for the lurkers perhaps ? But will that >inhibit them from "coming out" ? > >I'd appreciate comments on what people see as the advantages of a digest >option. It's not too much effort (based on what I've read of the majordomo >docs :-) ), so I could probably set it up next week in a quiet patch. One advantage is that some people - like the one quoted in the original message - may take a digest version who at the moment take no version at all. One disadvantage which used to be seen on OKBridge Discuss is that people read something in the digest and reply to it. Since many people forget to snip [or do not bother!] this meant that they sent the whole day's digest as their reply, having added a single line about 80% of the way down! :((((( My feeling is the we should try it, but be prepared to abandon it if it leads to too many extremely annoying messages. Hopefully, BLML readers have more idea of Netiquette than OKBD readers, who got a PC for Xmas and are still trying to find the "Any" key. :)))) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 3 12:35:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:46:39 +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 JAA21799 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:46:25 +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 11tezI-0005RS-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:46:09 +0000 Message-ID: <2HX9mQBjmmR4Ew26@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:44:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991201213635.0076f0f0@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991201213635.0076f0f0@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 01:21 PM 12/1/99 +0100, Martin wrote: >>We in the Netherlands do have alert regulations. However, that would >>not have helped in this case. According to these regulations, the >>2S must be alerted in the more common meanings, for it is a >>convention. But your 2S must also be alerted, since the natural >>meaning is apparently highly uncommon. So 2S must always be alerted, >>and South will still make the same lucky mistake. > >Now there's a sensible system of alerts! 2S is _always_ alertable in these >auctions, on the principle that since most players treat it as artificial >(hence alertable), the minority that plays it as natural must alert it. >Naturally, the alert is completely meaningless in all cases. > >The Polish approach to alert regulation looks pretty sensible, at least >compared to that. Another Chinese water torture job!!!!!!!!! All right, Mike, have your fun. After all, it has only been said about 100 times before in the last four years, here and on RGB, and there will always be people who unthinkingly now assume Dutch alerts are wrong. When you construct an alerting system, you either make it very simple, but include several problems, especially for the lower ranks, as the Australian alerting, or you compromise on a medium complicated one, with fewer basic problems, but some glaring anomalies, as the Dutch, or you make it pretty accurate, as in the ACBL, and no-one gets it right. There is no easy solution. You can avoid anomalies by the ACBL approach, and no-one fully understands their alerts. You can avoid anomalies by a very simple alerting system, and get some terrible side- effects. Non-alerts of any doubles means that you lose the effect of alerting you: consider 1H x: fancy having to check in case it turns out to be spades and clubs! Or you can go with a compromise of some rules, not too difficult to remember, and every so often you reach a position where as a result of the basic simplicity, the structure is unhelpful. Are you sure that because of this *one* case you can say that Polish alerting overall is more sensible than Dutch? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 3 13:42:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:42:30 +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 NAA22358 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:42:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehen.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.215]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA15294 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:42:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991202213930.0074f038@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 21:39:30 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <2HX9mQBjmmR4Ew26@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19991201213635.0076f0f0@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991201213635.0076f0f0@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:44 PM 12/2/99 +0000, David S wrote: > Or you can go with a compromise of some rules, not too difficult to >remember, and every so often you reach a position where as a result of >the basic simplicity, the structure is unhelpful. Are you sure that >because of this *one* case you can say that Polish alerting overall is >more sensible than Dutch? > No, I think the ACBL has done some sensible things with regard to alert/disclosure systems, starting with announcements in some obvious cases. I think there is in general a tendency, best exhibited with some of the more arcane aspects of the ACBL approach, to try and cut things too fine, with the very results you have described. I am not unsympathetic to the difficulties faced by those who seek to address these problems constructively, and I know that it is easier to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at the efforts of others than it is to actually build effective systems. But the case at hand is actually not too difficult. The problem comes from the assumption that it must be right to alert any uncommon treatment, even when natural. It is not actually helpful to adopt that principle, as this case shows. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 13:51:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:51:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22387 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:51:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from saratoga.jcu.edu.au (saratoga.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.5]) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA08402 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:51:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by saratoga.jcu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA18854 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:51:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: saratoga.jcu.edu.au: sci-lsk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:51:13 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit In-Reply-To: <2HX9mQBjmmR4Ew26@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > When you construct an alerting system, you either make it very simple, > but include several problems, especially for the lower ranks, as the > Australian alerting, or you compromise on a medium complicated one, with > fewer basic problems, but some glaring anomalies, as the Dutch, or you > make it pretty accurate, as in the ACBL, and no-one gets it right. > > There is no easy solution. You can avoid anomalies by the ACBL > approach, and no-one fully understands their alerts. You can avoid > anomalies by a very simple alerting system, and get some terrible side- > effects. Non-alerts of any doubles means that you lose the effect of > alerting you: consider 1H x: fancy having to check in case it turns out > to be spades and clubs! I almost feel constained to defend the Australian approach. :)) The terrible side-effects aren't that terrible in the sense that the example above is what is termed a "Self alerting" call. These calls don't require an alert during the auction, but such agreements do require a pre-alert before the start of the round. The ABF convention card has a specific area for such pre-alerts. Any pair having such an agreement and not pre-alerting it would expect to be ruled against if the opponents were damaged. Bids of the opponent's suit are another action deemed "self-alerting" whether they be cues, asks or even natural. Australians essentially know that they can't make any assumption about a "self-alerting call". Having to ask is not a great imposition. Most players now make it part of their routine to ascertain (before the commencement of the round) their opponents doubling structure in the same way one checks the opponents basic system, NT range and minimum suit length requirements to open. > Or you can go with a compromise of some rules, not too difficult to > remember, and every so often you reach a position where as a result of > the basic simplicity, the structure is unhelpful. Are you sure that > because of this *one* case you can say that Polish alerting overall is > more sensible than Dutch? When you come to Australia in January and February, you may be pleasantly supprised! Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 14:31:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:31:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22510 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:31:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP088.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.176]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20208 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:31:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991202212542.00a42670@earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 21:28:20 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: BLML in Digest form? (was Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit) In-Reply-To: <83w$aVB8tmR4EwVU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.32.19991202141421.00f29da0@acsys.anu.edu.au> <3.0.32.19991202141421.00f29da0@acsys.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >I'd appreciate comments on what people see as the advantages of a digest > >option. It's not too much effort (based on what I've read of the majordomo > >docs :-) ), so I could probably set it up next week in a quiet patch. My humble opinion: I don't take digests so I don't care whether a digest option is tried or not. I find individual messages more useful, not least because when someone makes a point or illustrates a useful analysis I can save the message for later reference. (Always learning, always learning.) But if offering a digest as well would make the list more useful for others, then by all means let's give it a whirl. 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 Dec 3 17:56:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:56:49 +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 RAA22869 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:56:41 +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 ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:56:32 -0800 Message-ID: <059601bf3d5b$6dfbccc0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:46:14 -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 Robert E. Harris wrote: > The 12-9-7-5-3 point count (for AKQJT) gives 144 points in a standard 52 > card deck. The 4321 count gives 40 HCP in the deck. On a proportional > basis, (15/40)x144 = 54 points for a minimum (15 HCP) 1 NT. > JTx-QJT-QJT-KQJT (13 HCP) is 62 points while Axx-Axx-Axx-Axxx (16 HCP) is > 48 points. So the ACBL would have trouble dealing with a 12-9 bidder who > automatically opens 1 NT on the 13 HCP hand and says the 16 HP hand is too > weak to open 1 NT. They just wouldn't let [it(?), them(?), you(?)] do it. I keep seeing this sort of assertion, and maybe it is true of some TDs who take the HCP regulations too literally. As Don Oakie explained in the Feb 1978 *Bulletin*, an occasional deviation from announced strength by as much as a queen is acceptable. Since that statement is included in *Duplicate Decisions* (Club Directors Guide for Ruling at the Table), I assume it is official ACBL policy. > This is a real problem in translating the old Vienna count, as I found when > I was reading the English version of Dr. Stern's book on the Vienna system. > I think anyone using the Vienna count would now and then run into director > calls. Honor trick count (Culbertson) would probably meet the same trouble > now. Few under 70 know about it. > My 1NT opening range is 3-1/2+ to 4+ honor count (Lew Mathe's range), which translates roughly to 16-18 HCP in the 4-3-2-1 system. It means, however, that I open some 15 HCP, and do not open some 18 HCP, hands with 1NT, a deviation that is permissible. On my CC I show the range both ways, and I have never had a problem. The ACBL would do better to avoid use of the lousy 4-3-2-1 count as a standard, and express ranges, minimums, and maximums, in the way that the Laws do. (L40D: "...a hand of a king or more below average strength") For instance, the limit on 1NT range (if conventions are to be used), instead of "a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range greater than 5 HCP," could be "a lower limit weaker than an average hand or with a range greater than a king and a queen." Almost everyone uses the beginners' 4-3-2-1 count, however, so this is not a big issue. Marv (Marvin L. French) Age 72 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 20:03:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 20:03:23 +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 UAA23005 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 20:03:15 +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 JAA20837 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:02:36 GMT Message-ID: <38478736.35B48529@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:02:46 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <000301bf3cf4$fab95540$176d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill a écrit : > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >Peter Gill wrote: > >> ... > > And what is the point of this discussion? > I believe that to *ask or not ask* about an alert is not, and should not be, > UI. I believe there are two very different kinds of UI relating to *ask or not to ask*: 1) UI related to partner's interest in the proceedings. 2) UI related to partner's interpretation of opponents' bids. For (1) I agree this UI should not exist; more precisely, I don't advocate conversion of "U" into "A", but the goal should be the vanishment of "I". This would require to educate contestants to ask randomly: always when they are interested (difficult to require otherwise!) and randomly when they are not; unfortunately (IMO) this approach is contrary to some SO regulations. For (2), in some instances "I" is unavoidable (partner doesn't ask and you are sure he doesn't know opponents' system). IMO (and I know it is not universally shared) this is UI, and UI's recipient should have to act as if partner were aware of opponents' agreements. JP Rocafort > > Peter Gill > Australia. -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Dec 3 21:05:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 21:05:05 +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 VAA23124 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 21:04:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [212.140.97.133] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11tpa3-0007Iz-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:04:48 +0000 Message-ID: <000901bf3d75$b5291660$85618cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001e01bf3d1d$0b147820$725108c3@swhki5i6> Subject: Re: L70 - language problem Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:03:24 -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 Grattan wrote: > +=+ I think we should be just a little careful. > The phrase 'just a little doubt' could be > slightly misleading. The law does not > say 'at all possible' which is what you > might understand as 'a little doubt'. The > level of doubt required is one step above > that; the doubt must be one that it is > reasonable to have - on what he knows > the Director feels the chance the player > has forgotten is not an altogether remote > one. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The phrase "at all likely" is not an easy one to analyse. Commonly, one uses the word "likely" for things that are more probable than not - my own view is that a "likely" thing has a probability of at least 70% or so. "It is likely to rain this afternoon" is a strong indication that one should take an umbrella. An "unlikely" thing, by contrast, has a probability of around 20% or less. If you roll a die once, you will be unlikely to roll a six, but one would not say that if you rolled a die three times you would be unlikely to roll a six (nor, of course, that you would be likely to roll one). Thus, there is not a continuum of "likelihood" - between likely occurrences and unlikely ones fall a great many half-chances. A "very likely" thing would be a near-certainty, while a "not very likely" thing would happen around four times out of ten. Again, there is a strange discontinuity; there are 50-70% chances of which one would say neither that they are "very likely" nor that they are "not very likely". The general rule that if a thing is not X, then it is not-X does not apply. The phrase "at all X" means "containing even a vague trace of X-ness", so that: "If you feel at all sleepy after taking this medicine, consult your doctor" means: "Consult your doctor unless you feel wide awake after taking this medicine". So, the phrase "at all likely", on the surface at any rate, means "having even the slightest trace of being appreciably more probable than not" - which, of course, makes no sense. But we use the phrase "not at all likely" to mean "possible, but highly improbable". And, for some reason, the general rule that has failed us above seems to work in this case: if a thing is not "not at all likely", then it is "at all likely". My feeling is that an "at all likely" event is anything that will happen more than one time in twenty. But the subjective quantification is, as usual, left by the Laws to the Directors, Appeals Committees and Sponsoring Organisations in the pious hope that these delicate nuances of English will lead to the intent of the Lawmakers being fully implemented in Nizhny-Novgorod. If a claimant leaves an opponent with an undrawn and unmentioned trump, he should lose a trick to it if he can legally do so. I and thousands of other players the world over have led a plain winner from dummy intending to discard, and have not noticed my RHO ruff, so have discarded anyway rather than overruffing, to the detriment of the contract. I would describe my action in so doing as a piece of carelessness, but the consensus appears to be that it is evidence of unsound mind. Ridiculous. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 3 23:47:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 23:47:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [195.61.43.205] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA23618 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 23:47:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (portge014.worldcom.ch [212.74.162.14]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA07245 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:44:07 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991203134746.008539d0@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 13:47:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: Re: Hand notation In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991203095309.00960460@chance.otago.ac.nz> References: <04dc01bf3cfc$ce81c720$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael H. Albert wrote: >As a (pure) mathematician I enjoy special privilege when it comes to >quibbling about notation. While it's certainly a good idea to have (at >least) two notations for hands, one specifying suit order and the other >not, I find this particular choice both bulky (in terms of space used) and >ugly. And of course I have a hard time reading "=" as anything other than >"is equal to" which leads to cognitive dissonance when faced with 5=4=3=1. > >Quibblers of course also have an obligation to present their own favoured >alternatives, so that others may quibble in turn. Mine are: > >5431 5 spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, 1 club >(5431) That shape, no suits specified >(54)31 54 majors (either order), 3 diamonds, 1 club That is what is used in the "GUIDE TO COMPLETION OF THE WBF CONVENTION CARD AND SUPPLEMENTARY SHEETS": (5431) Any hand with that distribution (suits unknown) 5431 Five spades, four hearts, three diamonds, one club 54(xx) A hand with five spades and four hearts Yvan Calame From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 00:51:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 00:51:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23765 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 00:51:26 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA11724 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:50:47 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:50 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: MI? - yes I think so To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <000201bf3c4a$ff19f180$8f5208c3@swhki5i6> Grattan Endicott >>> > 'Evidence' intended > >collaborative matter other than the assertion of > >the side whose action is under scrutiny; > > > > === CORRECTION: 'CORROBORATIVE MATTER' > who heard of any collaboration around here? Personally I'd regard "We agreed to play it" as evidence of the lowest quality and generally to be discounted. Whereas "We had a similar situation last week and discussed it in the bar - of course partner had had a few and might have forgotten" as significantly more compelling even absent any documentary evidence. OK a few liars might benefit from my apparent leniency but it'll have to be deliberate rather than based on self-deception. I sympathise with anyone required to give hard and fast definitions in this area. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 00:51:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 00:51:35 +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 AAA23764 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 00:51:25 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA11716 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:50:47 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:50 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: A controversial Ruling To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > Tim West-meads wrote: > > >I don't believe a redouble in this situation can ever be anything but > >"Help" some sort of 5-0-4-4 in desperation maybe. Certainly a deeply > >ingrained "meta-rule" of mine is - Never play a redoubled contract if > >there is any doubt in your mind whatsoever. Only a complete idiot > would >redouble with eight tricks in spades and limited defence against > 3m. > > I believe this bridge logic impeccable .... Thank you:-) > > >I can't see anything other than 2Sx-5 as justified. > > .... but this does not follow. As a TD, you need to know how *this* > pair play redouble, not how you think it should be played. I should have said that I would require very little "evidence" from the OS to be persuaded that redouble was TO. A "self-serving" assertion that it would be stupid to play a blood redouble here would be enough to convince me. Obviously a proper investigation and assessment of the pair concerned would be in order for a proper ruling (this was just an opinion). Although given the director on the ground managed the apparent travesty of result stands perhaps we would be better off without investigating! I'd also want to investigate before giving a likely PP/PPw for blatant UI abuse. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 02:19:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 02:19:58 +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 CAA24125 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 02:19:47 +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 11tuUY-000DWc-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:19:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:56:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <000301bf3cf4$fab95540$176d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <000301bf3cf4$fab95540$176d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >And what is the point of this discussion? >I believe that to *ask or not ask* about an alert is not, and should not be, >UI. So, you ask about a new suit at the three level on this hand - and your partner leads one. On the next hand there is a new suit at the three level, which you don't ask about - and your partner does not lead one. Correct both times. Given current UI rules we would deal with you - but with your suggested rule we could do nothing. Is this fair? The trouble with your suggested change is that you are looking at one particular problem, and wish to make a change to cover this particular problem, without worrying about the other ramifications. Do you work for Microsoft? :)) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 4 02:19:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 02:19:58 +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 CAA24126 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 02:19:47 +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 11tuUh-0002N0-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:19:37 +0000 Message-ID: <3sINcDAcz9R4Ewk3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:08:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <3.0.6.32.19991202143848.00881410@mail.maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991202143848.00881410@mail.maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >Does an NCBO have the authority to compel players to evaluate their hands >in any particular manner? Or putting it more bluntly, does the ACBL Board >of Directors have the authority to force players to count their points? >What if a player wants to use a different pointcount system, 12-9-7-5-3 for >A-K-Q-J-10*, say, because he believes it gives a more accurate estimate of >the strength of his hand? Can the League prevent him from doing that? Or, >can it require him to recompute his totals, using the pointcount the League >endorses, to make sure the "12-9 system" doesn't violate a convention chart >that the the Board has prescribed? > >I am not asking about disclosure. Given the prevalence of reliance on >4-3-2-1, it is surely reasonable for the NCBO to require disclosure in >those terms -- for one notrump, for example, something like, "We use the >12-9 count, and our 1NT opening shows 28-35 points under that count; it >comes out to about 15-18 regular points." (Or a convention-card notation >along the lines of "approximately 15-18, but don't hold us to it.") > >I wonder whether some of the current regulations are Lawful. The one >preventing the use of conventions when partner's 1NT opening bid is >wide-range is a case in point: they have the authority to ban the use of >conventions under certain circumstances (since they have plenary authority >to regulate the use of conventions). But what if their exercise of that >authority implicitly (or explicitly, for that matter) requires a player to >use a particular evaluation method? Does that overstep their authority to >regulate the use of conventions? Or is there some other source of >authority for regulating evaluation techniques? The right of the RA [regulating authority] to regulate via L40D is far-ranging. This means that if a 2S opening showing clubs is only allowed if it has less than 12 HCP and more than 5 HCP that is a legal regulation for the RA to make. Note that it would not be a legal regulation if 2S showed spades. So long as you fit your conventions into this then the fact that you use a different form of valuation should not matter. Many conventions do not have a point-count attached and you will just have to fit in with any other regulations. As far as disclosure is concerned, it could be a problems if it were too complex, so the RA could ban it if disclosure became impossible, since they also regulate methods of disclosure. In fact, the EBU does so. You may be interested in the relevant EBU reg: 9.1.3 You may define the strength of your hand by using any method of hand evaluation that will be understood easily by your opponents (eg High Card Points, the number of Playing tricks, etc). >Also, what is an average hand? This is relevant because the Laws allow >regulation of opening one bids which could show a hand that is a king below >average strength. > >Couldn't an argument be made that the average hand is: > >S - 876 H - 876 D - 876 C - 9765? > >This might also be an average hand: > >S - AKQJ1098765432 H - none D - none C - none The first half of the article suggested you were asking worthwhile and serious questions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 04:01:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 04:01:32 +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 EAA24329 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 04:01:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.99.43.53] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11tw4x-0005ky-00; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:01:07 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01bf3daf$dc88fec0$352b63c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3.0.6.32.19991202143848.00881410@mail.maine.rr.com> <3sINcDAcz9R4Ewk3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:00:06 -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 Stevenson wrote: > >Also, what is an average hand? This is relevant because the Laws allow > >regulation of opening one bids which could show a hand that is a king below > >average strength. > > > >Couldn't an argument be made that the average hand is: > > > >S - 876 H - 876 D - 876 C - 9765? > > > >This might also be an average hand: > > > >S - AKQJ1098765432 H - none D - none C - none > > The first half of the article suggested you were asking worthwhile and > serious questions. Those are what are known as "jokes", David. I am aware that such frivolity has little place in so august a mailing list as this one, and I am sure that our contributor will see the error of his ways under your helpful guidance. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 04:19:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 04:19:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24439 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 04:19:34 +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 ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:19:23 -0800 Message-ID: <05ba01bf3db2$654bc240$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <000301bf3cf4$fab95540$176d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <38478736.35B48529@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:14:45 -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 Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > This would require to educate contestants to ask >randomly: always when they are interested (difficult to require >otherwise!) and randomly when they are not; unfortunately (IMO) this >approach is contrary to some SO regulations. Unfortunately this means partner will know you're not interested when you don't question the auction. Perhaps the opening leader, at least, should *always* ask for an explanation of the opposing auction, if s/he can wait until that time. If this task is put on third hand's shoulders part of the time, there is not only the possibility of UI but a danger that declarer will be aided (knowing who is interested). Then we're into the area of perhaps helping partner, when we understand the auction but partner may not. Would it not be a good regulation that declarer, before the opening lead, must explain his side's auction when there has been an unexplained Alerted call, or some other partnership agreement that the defenders ought to know about? This is currently a strong ACBL "suggestion," included in The Principle of Full Disclosure section of the ACTIVE ETHICS pamphlet. Another practice to reduce UI is to avoid the questioning of a particular call, and instead ask for an explanation of the auction (as required by L20F1, weakly confirmed by Lille Interpretation #9). Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 04:35:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 04:35:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from bach.ensg.ign.fr (bach.ensg.ign.fr [195.220.92.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24497 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 04:35:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from pallas.ensg.ign.fr (pallas.ensg.ign.fr [172.31.40.40]) by bach.ensg.ign.fr (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA16469 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:55:59 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> X-Sender: beauvillain@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 18:34:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Edouard Beauvillain Subject: different explanation of bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi everybody ! I have been watching (or is it listening to ?) for a while and this is my first try, hope it is not the last one :-) Sorry David i have no cats... I have been reading old posts and one subject made me remember this two following cases (quite similar) Both happened in Lille98 in the Rosenblum round robin : 1)Australian opponents, (playing skip bids as you will discover ;-) ) the auction goes with no bidding from our side, 1NT 2C* *general inquiry 3D** 5C*** **5cards, good hand *** splinter all pass we were playing with screen so i was the only defender to know that my RHO had a singletonC (i was East) and that we were defending a silly contract do you think my partner is entitled to know what is really happening? if partner misdefend and we get "only" down 2 or 3 instead of down 5 can we get redress? (I think no but i want confirmation) postmortem at the end of this post... 2)Good foreign opponents (national team) but i prefer not to name them the auction goes : (partner dealer) part RHO me LHO 1C 1NT 2H all pass 1NT is strong i intended my 2H bid as a transfer for S but forgot that this was a natural weak bid with this particular partner... RHO is on my side of screen so he "knows" i have spades... Is LHO autorized to know this also? In fact my partner put down his hand, Hearts on my left (as trumps) so the spades were near my RHO : H: AQxx C: Qxx D: Axx S: xxx and RHO touched the spades (with a sarcastic smile) then -as if it was not enough- made a comment about "transfer"... as a director how would you act about the hand play? and about opp attitude? my own hand was H: K10x C: xx D: xx S: QJxxxx post mortem at the end... Post mortem : on the first hand there was nothing difficult to do, opp went 6 off (vulnerable...) but 6D failed at the other table, and we won the match on the second hand, i called the director, explained away from the table what was going on, he told me to play the hand (as expected) LHO "knowing" i had spades and not hearts played a round of trump so as spades were 2-2 and hearts 4-2 offside i made 2H exactly (same tricks as in 2S) which would probably have failed if they haven't played a round of trump. our partners played 3NTx= and we won this match also :-)) Have a nice week end Edouard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 04:52:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 04:46:41 +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 EAA24536 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 04:46:30 +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 RAA18518 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:45:43 GMT Message-ID: <384801D2.B32179E1@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 18:45:54 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hand notation References: <04dc01bf3cfc$ce81c720$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19991203134746.008539d0@worldcom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yvan Calame a écrit : > > Michael H. Albert wrote: > >As a (pure) mathematician I enjoy special privilege when it comes to > >quibbling about notation. While it's certainly a good idea to have (at > >least) two notations for hands, one specifying suit order and the other > >not, I find this particular choice both bulky (in terms of space used) and > >ugly. And of course I have a hard time reading "=" as anything other than > >"is equal to" which leads to cognitive dissonance when faced with 5=4=3=1. > > > >Quibblers of course also have an obligation to present their own favoured > >alternatives, so that others may quibble in turn. Mine are: > > > >5431 5 spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, 1 club > >(5431) That shape, no suits specified > >(54)31 54 majors (either order), 3 diamonds, 1 club > > That is what is used in the "GUIDE TO COMPLETION OF THE WBF CONVENTION > CARD AND SUPPLEMENTARY SHEETS": > That is also part of notations used by JR Vernes (actual inventor of the Law of Total Tricks) about 25 years ago. He also used: . for 0 or 1 card: 534. - for any number: 5-4. when the number of the four suits don't add to 13: "accentuated" for an exact number of cards held in a suit, and "normal" for a minimal number of cards held in a suit: 5-4. means 5 spades, any number of hearts, 4 diamonds or more, 0 or 1 club. JP Rocafort > > Yvan Calame -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Dec 4 06:05:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA24761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 06:05:02 +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 GAA24755 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 06:04:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from [212.140.98.159] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11ty0Y-0000vJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:04:43 +0000 Message-ID: <002901bf3dc1$2048fd20$9f628cd4@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <000301bf3cf4$fab95540$176d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <38478736.35B48529@meteo.fr> <05ba01bf3db2$654bc240$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:03:44 -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 Konrad's problem is yet another instance of this basic fact: Whatever alerting regualtions may exist, it is impossible to play bridge completely ethically unless all alerted bids are accompanied by questions and answers (or screens are in use). Unfortunately, it is also impossible to play bridge other than slowly and laboriously if all alerted bids are accompanied by questions and answers. This dichotomy has been resolved by a great many SOs, including our own, in favour of the "don't ask unless interested" approach (which, since it denies contestants a right conferred upon them by the Laws, is strictly illegal). I think that the best that players can do is to recognise situations in which to both to ask and not to ask may transmit UI, and always to ask in those situations only. Regrettably, however, this will lead in practice to a situation that happened some years ago: AKxxx Kxx Axx AQ QJxxx AJx KQxx x North played in seven spades after this auction: S W N E 1S Pass 4C (1) Pass (2) 4D Pass 4H Pass 5C Pass 5D Pass 6D Pass 7S Pass Pass Pass (1) Splinter (2) After asking the meaning of 4C East led a trump; North drew trumps, tested diamonds finding them 4-2, and took the club finesse which lost. The heart finesse would have worked, and North complained that he was induced to follow the losing line because of West's interest in the 4C bid. West explained that he always asked about 4C in this auction in order to avoid transmitting UI (his side played that if 4C was Swiss, double showed clubs, but if it was a splinter, double showed hearts; to ask and then pass could not but convey UI if he were supposed to pass without asking if disinterested in both clubs and hearts). The AC ruled that since North's correct line was to cash HAK, then take the club finesse and go two down, the table score would stand - but *they awarded a hefty procedural penalty against West for his action in asking the meaning of 4C with a Yarborough*. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 07:38:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 07:38:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA24961 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 07:38:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:37:08 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991203153311.00895770@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 15:33:11 -0500 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <000f01bf3daf$dc88fec0$352b63c3@davidburn> References: <3.0.6.32.19991202143848.00881410@mail.maine.rr.com> <3sINcDAcz9R4Ewk3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:00 PM 12/3/99 -0000, David Burn wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >Also, what is an average hand? This is relevant because the Laws >allow >> >regulation of opening one bids which could show a hand that is a >king below >> >average strength. >> > >> >Couldn't an argument be made that the average hand is: >> > >> >S - 876 H - 876 D - 876 C - 9765? >> > >> >This might also be an average hand: >> > >> >S - AKQJ1098765432 H - none D - none C - none >> >> The first half of the article suggested you were asking worthwhile >and >> serious questions. > >Those are what are known as "jokes", David. I am aware that such >frivolity has little place in so august a mailing list as this one, >and I am sure that our contributor will see the error of his ways >under your helpful guidance. After the examples, I said: "OK, this may be silly. But, just what is 'a hand of a king or more below average strength'?" "This" intended to refer to the examples I gave. So, yes, I did realize the examples were on the non-serious side, but I really do want to know what "a hand of a king or more below average strength" is. Most people would give something similar to: A43 K52 Q86 JT97 as an average hand. It has one card of each rank and is as practially close as posisble to 3.25 cards in each suit. But, 4432 shape is more than twice as likely as 4333 shape. And, where strength comes into play, distribution is important. I think most people would agree that a hand of 4432 shape is stronger than a hand of 4333 shape (all other things being equal). So, why wouldn't an avaerage hand have 4432 shape? Over half of all hands have a five card or longer suit, should the average hand? How does one translate a king into distributional strength? Is a void worth more strength than a king? How about this hand, is it a king below average strength: A543 -- Q876 JT976? The Laws don't restrict us to high card strength. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 08:29:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 08:29:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (fb01.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.200.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25203 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 08:29:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveibe.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.110]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA20050 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:29:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991203162621.0074e774@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 16:26:21 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: different explanation of bids In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:34 PM 12/3/99 +0100, Edouard wrote: >1)Australian opponents, (playing skip bids as you will discover ;-) ) >the auction goes with no bidding from our side, >1NT 2C* *general inquiry >3D** 5C*** **5cards, good hand *** splinter >all pass > >we were playing with screen so i was the only defender to know that my RHO >had a singletonC (i was East) and that we were defending a silly contract > >do you think my partner is entitled to know what is really happening? >if partner misdefend and we get "only" down 2 or 3 instead of down 5 can we >get redress? >(I think no but i want confirmation) Bienvenue! Your partner is entitled to know the opponents' agreements. If their agreement is that 5C is a splinter, then your partner has received MI, and any failure to defend optimally consequent to such MI should be redressed. OTOH, if it is the 5C bidder who is wrong (i.e., 5C is, by agreement, natural), then it is you who have been mis-informed, but this mis-information is not likely to cause you to mis-defend, so in this case, any sub-optimal defense (presumably by your partner) is not redressable. In making a ruling about this case, the TD is instructed to presume that the 5C-bidder has bid within the agreed methods, unless the opponents can provide evidence in support of their contention that 5C really is a splinter. According to the dWs, there is no such thing as "evidence" of a mis-bid, in practice, and a TD mis-guided by that view will automatically ignore system notes, convention cards, and the like to declare that the failure to alert the 5C bid was in fact MI. A TD who is more committed to the letter of the Laws will assess whatever "evidence" is provided, and make a determination about the actual agreement. The critical point is that your partner is _not_ entitled to know what is in the opponents' hands, nor how they intended their bids, except insofar as that information is consistent with their agreements. That you happen to know this information is merely an artifact of the screen system. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 09:54:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:54:25 +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 JAA25413 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:54:17 +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 OAA14972 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:54:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA1849; 3 Dec 99 14:54:07 -0800 Date: 3 Dec 99 14:52:00 -0800 Message-Id: <199912031454.AA1849@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: ... > This dichotomy has been resolved by a great many SOs, > including our own, in favour of the "don't ask unless interested" > approach (which, since it denies contestants a right conferred upon > them by the Laws, is strictly illegal). > The AC ruled that since North's correct line was to cash HAK, then > take the club finesse and go two down, the table score would stand - > but *they awarded a hefty procedural penalty against West for his > action in asking the meaning of 4C with a Yarborough*. Did the players involved lodge an appeal to the national authority, as allowed under L93C? This right seems not to be clouded by the footnote referenced in L93B, whereby a Zonal organization may establish differing conditions of appeals for 'special contests'. I have remarked before on the UI available from the absence of a question, and on my own approach where I have asked after partner has called over an alerted call (I always assume that partner knew what the call meant, and that his or her call thereafter was our systemic agreement on the assumption that he knew). We have an interesting thread running, but so far I have not seen anyone mention this part of L73B explicitly: "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." [Emphasis mine] We have all noted that there is UI available from a question asked, or from a question unasked -- part of this is due to having an inherently multi-valued function (natural; 'normal' conventional meaning; the 'normal' forcing/non-forcing meaning; truly bizarre conventional meaning) produce a binary result (alert/no alert). I have a great deal more sympathy for anyone who goes to great lengths (as the player who enquired about the 4C call did) to minimize the UI available to partner than I do for regulations which *require* that a player make UI of one form or another available. -- Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, California {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 10:35:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:35:35 +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 KAA25534 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:35:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp230-8.worldonline.nl [195.241.230.8]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA23381; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 00:35:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <005601bf3de7$3e5ec080$08e6f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Hand notation Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 00:36:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0053_01BF3DEF.9E905380" 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_0053_01BF3DEF.9E905380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 01:26 AM 12/3/99 +0100, you wrote: > >>I would prefer the use of some sort of delimiter, though. Can you tell = how >>many >>spades there are in a 10102 hand, or in an 11110 ?? > >This is rare enough that a delimiter could be added to these notations >without having to add three the 99.9% where they are not needed. > >Tim > With which I completely agree. Nevertheless, I would expect a = mathematician to propose a notation which uniquely identifies what it is to represent, = and this one does not, unless Michael expects us to use base 13 (or any base larger than 13). Jac ------=_NextPart_000_0053_01BF3DEF.9E905380 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tim Goodwin wrote:


>At 01:26 AM 12/3/99 +0100, = you=20 wrote:
>
>>I would prefer the use of some sort of = delimiter,=20 though. Can you tell how
>>many
>>spades there are in = a 10102=20 hand, or in an 11110   ??
>
>This is rare enough = that a=20 delimiter could be added to these notations
>without having to add = three=20 the 99.9% where they are not needed.
>
>Tim
>
With = which I=20 completely agree. Nevertheless, I would expect a mathematician
to = propose a=20 notation which uniquely identifies what it is to represent, and
this = one does=20 not, unless Michael expects us to use base 13 (or any base
larger = than=20 13).

Jac
------=_NextPart_000_0053_01BF3DEF.9E905380-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 16:16:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 16:16:17 +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 QAA26250 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 16:16:08 +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 ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 21:15:59 -0800 Message-ID: <063401bf3e16$75186980$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912031454.AA1849@gateway.tandem.com> Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 21:05:15 -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 Burn wrote: > ... > > This dichotomy has been resolved by a great many SOs, > > including our own, in favour of the "don't ask unless interested" > > approach (which, since it denies contestants a right conferred upon > > them by the Laws, is strictly illegal). > > > The AC ruled that since North's correct line was to cash HAK, then > > take the club finesse and go two down, the table score would stand - > > but *they awarded a hefty procedural penalty against West for his > > action in asking the meaning of 4C with a Yarborough*. PPs reign! Asking a question is now a "procedure"! > > Did the players involved lodge an appeal to the national authority, > as allowed under L93C? This right seems not to be clouded by the > footnote referenced in L93B, whereby a Zonal organization may > establish differing conditions of appeals for 'special contests'. > > I have remarked before on the UI available from the absence of a > question, and on my own approach where I have asked after partner > has called over an alerted call (I always assume that partner knew > what the call meant, and that his or her call thereafter was our > systemic agreement on the assumption that he knew). We have an > interesting thread running, but so far I have not seen anyone mention > this part of L73B explicitly: > > "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." [Emphasis mine] > > We have all noted that there is UI available from a question asked, or > from a question unasked -- part of this is due to having an inherently > multi-valued function (natural; 'normal' conventional meaning; the > 'normal' forcing/non-forcing meaning; truly bizarre conventional > meaning) produce a binary result (alert/no alert). I have a great > deal more sympathy for anyone who goes to great lengths (as the player > who enquired about the 4C call did) to minimize the UI available to > partner than I do for regulations which *require* that a player > make UI of one form or another available. > Please note, everyone, that if the splinter bidder's partner merely Announced, "Splinter," at the time of the 4C bid, there would be no problem. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 17:42:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 17:42:34 +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 RAA26464 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 17:42:27 +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 ; Fri, 3 Dec 1999 22:42:18 -0800 Message-ID: <077601bf3e22$81bfbce0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Hand notation Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 22:38:41 -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 Michael H. Albert wrote: >As a (pure) mathematician I enjoy special privilege when it comes to >quibbling about notation. While it's certainly a good idea to have (at >least) two notations for hands, one specifying suit order and the other >not, I find this particular choice both bulky (in terms of space used) and >ugly. And of course I have a hard time reading "=" as anything other than >"is equal to" which leads to cognitive dissonance when faced with 5=4=3=1. A number of math types have criticized this notation ( e.g., 5=4=3=1 to designate exactly 5 spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, and one club) because an equal sign doesn't seem appropriate as a delimiter. Here's how this notation could be logically derived: We could start with something like nspades=5, nhearts=4, ndiamonds=3, nclubs=1 Tiring of typing all that, we would probably reduce this to ns=5, nh=4, nd=3, nc=1 Then, realizing the n's are superfluous, to be understood, we type s=5, h=4, d=3, c=1 Then we can specify that the order is spades-hearts-diamonds-clubs, and the commas aren't necessary, so we can type =5=4=3=1 Now the first = becomes unnecessary, since there are only five cards left after designating the other suits, so we get 5=4=3=1, Q. E. D. No cognitive dissonance. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 20:06:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 20:06:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail3.relaypoint.net (mail3.relaypoint.net [207.213.107.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26720 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 20:06:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from relaypoint.net (dsl-207-105-45-142.hollywood.relaypoint.net [207.105.45.142]) by mail3.relaypoint.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA29226; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 01:06:15 -0800 Message-ID: <3848D8DC.3A00B206@relaypoint.net> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 01:03:24 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@relaypoint.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hand notation References: <077601bf3e22$81bfbce0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin: As a logical (?) extension of your procedure, the multiplicity of equal signs could be deemed superfluous, and we could reduce it to =5431 or possibly 5=431. I'm sort of attracted by =5431; seems like it does the job with a minimum of repetitious stuff. Irv "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Michael H. Albert wrote: > > >As a (pure) mathematician I enjoy special privilege when it comes to > >quibbling about notation. While it's certainly a good idea to have (at > >least) two notations for hands, one specifying suit order and the other > >not, I find this particular choice both bulky (in terms of space used) > and > >ugly. And of course I have a hard time reading "=" as anything other > than > >"is equal to" which leads to cognitive dissonance when faced with > 5=4=3=1. > > A number of math types have criticized this notation ( e.g., > 5=4=3=1 to designate exactly 5 spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, and one > club) because an equal sign doesn't seem appropriate as a delimiter. > > Here's how this notation could be logically derived: > > We could start with something like > > nspades=5, nhearts=4, ndiamonds=3, nclubs=1 > > Tiring of typing all that, we would probably reduce this to > > ns=5, nh=4, nd=3, nc=1 > > Then, realizing the n's are superfluous, to be understood, we type > > s=5, h=4, d=3, c=1 > > Then we can specify that the order is spades-hearts-diamonds-clubs, and > the > commas aren't necessary, so we can type > > =5=4=3=1 > > Now the first = becomes unnecessary, since there are only five > cards left after designating the other suits, so we get > > 5=4=3=1, Q. E. D. > > No cognitive dissonance. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 21:44:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 21:44:41 +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 VAA27182 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 21:44:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-71.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.71]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA01113 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 11:44:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3848EED8.6226E883@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 11:37:12 +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: different explanation of bids References: <3.0.1.32.19991203162621.0074e774@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just a reaction to a completely erroneous attribution of the opinions of the dWs in what "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > > In making a ruling about this case, the TD is instructed to presume that > the 5C-bidder has bid within the agreed methods, unless the opponents can > provide evidence in support of their contention that 5C really is a > splinter. > According to the dWs, there is no such thing as "evidence" of a > mis-bid, in practice, and a TD mis-guided by that view will automatically > ignore system notes, convention cards, and the like to declare that the > failure to alert the 5C bid was in fact MI. A TD who is more committed to > the letter of the Laws will assess whatever "evidence" is provided, and > make a determination about the actual agreement. > Of course there is such a thing as evidence ! Please do not ascribe to me things that have not been said at all. My examples are about players in doubt about their system. They can hardly have evidence, and thus the system is the one that conforms to the hand. "No agreement" is not a correct information, even when it is supposed true. Further, your analysis of Edouard's case is completely correct. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 21:44:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 21:44:42 +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 VAA27181 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 21:44:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-71.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.71]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA01109 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 11:44:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3848ED84.6222237D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 11:31:32 +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: different explanation of bids References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Edouard Beauvillain wrote: > > Hi everybody ! > > I have been watching (or is it listening to ?) for a while and this is my > first try, hope it is not the last one :-) > Sorry David i have no cats... > Bienvenu Edouard ! > I have been reading old posts and one subject made me remember this two > following cases (quite similar) > (I will snip the cases) The question Edouard asks is a very interesting one and I believe the answer to be : Opponents are entitled to know the system, but they are not entitled to know that you are having a misunderstanding. If they find out through some authorised manner, such as the bidding (like passing on a splinter) that is authorised information to them, but it still is not entitled information. Thus it follows that behind screens, opponents are not allowed to inform each other that there has been a misunderstanding. So the action of your RHO (touching the cards and saying "transfer?") is highly incorrect. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 4 23:04:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 23:04:02 +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 XAA27370 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 23:03:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.68] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11uDuk-0007PX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 12:03:46 +0000 Message-ID: <002a01bf3e4f$a17b15c0$445608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.1.32.19991203162621.0074e774@pop.mindspring.com> <3848EED8.6226E883@village.uunet.be> Subject: Xtatic Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 12:01:28 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk +=+ Hey guys, I got going on the new machine in a couple of hours. Forget about the interruption of service. I need to import my address book, however. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 01:34:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 01:34:00 +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 BAA27784 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 01:33:52 +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, 4 Dec 1999 06:33:37 -0800 Message-ID: <07b101bf3e64$51cffc60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <077601bf3e22$81bfbce0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3848D8DC.3A00B206@relaypoint.net> Subject: Re: Hand notation Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 06:25:19 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J. Kostal wrote, in regard to 5=4=3=1 showing exact distribution:: > Marvin: As a logical (?) extension of your procedure, the multiplicity > of equal signs could be deemed superfluous, and we could reduce it to > =5431 or possibly 5=431. I'm sort of attracted by =5431; seems like it > does the job with a minimum of repetitious stuff. > Good point, Irv, and yes, =5431 seems best if you want to do away with multiple equal signs. I presume you would retain the standard hyphens (e.g., 5-4-3-1) when each number could represent any suit. Retaining multiple equal signs might be necessary if the idea is to be extended to combining exact lengths with inexact ones. For instance =5=4-3-1 could show five spades, four hearts, and either =3=1 or =1=3 in the minors. Flannery? Perhaps =4=5{4}, meaning four spades, five hearts, and the remaining cards randomly distributed between the minor suits.. That gets us into esoteric notations that few players would be willing to accept. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 05:11:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 05:11:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA28468 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 05:11:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.106]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:11:27 -0800 Message-ID: <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:06:57 -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 I was going to stay out of this one, but I don't understand what has been said, so I'll put up a straw man that others can knock down. Edouard Beauvillain wrote: > 1)Australian opponents, (playing skip bids as you will discover ;-) ) > the auction goes with no bidding from our side, > 1NT 2C* *general inquiry > 3D** 5C*** **5cards, good hand *** splinter > all pass > > we were playing with screen so i was the only defender to know that my RHO > had a singletonC (i was East) and that we were defending a silly contract > > do you think my partner is entitled to know what is really happening? > if partner misdefend and we get "only" down 2 or 3 instead of down 5 can we > get redress? > (I think no but i want confirmation) If the splinter was truly a partnership agreement, declarer must call the TD before the opening lead to report the failure to Alert, and, when asked to do so, explain to your partner that 5C was a splinter bid. The failure to Alert was MI, which must be corrected at the first legal opportunity (L75D2). Dummy will perhaps disagree with declarer about the splinter agreement, but that doesn't matter once the opponent has been told (perhaps needlessly) of the singleton club. I suppose ideally the TD should confer privately with declarer and dummy to ascertain whether there really was an agreement about the splinter before requiring that declarer inform the opponents about it, but that's probably going too far. This assumes I am correct in believing that a failure to Alert is tantamount (sorry, David) to a mistaken explanation, which should be made clear in L75D. If the splinter bid was made in error, and there was no such partnership agreement, then declarer (awakened by partner's pass, and remembering that there was no agreement) need not reveal his/her blunder and need not call the TD. However, if the defense is adversely affected by the mistake, the TD will rule MI and adjust the score unless there is evidence that no agreement existed. Such evidence would be difficult to provide, since there is probably nothing about this on the CC. If the pair wisely has system notes available that specifically say 5C is natural in this auction, the TD should rule mistaken bid, not mistaken explanation, table result stands. The absence of a splinter agreement in the notes is not sufficient evidence by itself of no agreement; so if the jump to game is not covered by the notes, the TD should rule MI. > > 2)Good foreign opponents (national team) but i prefer not to name them > the auction goes : (partner dealer) > part RHO me LHO > 1C 1NT 2H all pass 1NT is strong > i intended my 2H bid as a transfer for S but forgot that this was a natural > weak bid with this particular partner... > RHO is on my side of screen so he "knows" i have spades... Is LHO authorized > to know this also? No. Mistaken calls do not have to be revealed. However, the TD may rule MI if you do not have evidence that 2H was natural by partnership agreement. > > In fact my partner put down his hand, Hearts on my left (as trumps) so the > spades were near my RHO : > H: AQxx C: Qxx D: Axx S: xxx > and RHO touched the spades (with a sarcastic smile) then -as if it was not > enough- made a comment about "transfer"... > as a director how would you act about the hand play? and about opp attitude? > my own hand was > H: K10x C: xx D: xx S: QJxxxx Touching the cards of another player is forbidden, of course. A separate issue is the possible UI conveyed by RHO's actions. Some have argued here that if RHO was convinced that a transfer meaning had not been made known to hir partner (i.e., MI, not a misbid), s/he had a right to get that information out somehow. Others (including me) feel that one never does anything to assist partner, counting on the TD to redress any MI damage. The TD must be called to sort this out, and may assess a PP for the touching of another player's cards (taking "atttitude" into consideration).. It strikes me that if a declaring side has made a misbid it might be better to explain the mistake to opponents (after the last pass, before the opening lead, after calling the TD) when lacking evidence of the true partnership agreement. The consequences are likely to be less severe than if a TD later rules MI and adjusts the score per L12C2. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 05:26:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 05:26:38 +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 FAA28504 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 05:26:28 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07311 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:26:12 +0100 Received: from ip103.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.103), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda07309; Sat Dec 4 19:26:11 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 25B twice Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 19:26:11 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35ni4s88ejku73fhrif1vdd2svbv6qfoqs@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <6cpa4skggodijt0311lrufa0e90l1k2rir@bilbo.dit.dk> In-Reply-To: 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 FAA28505 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:28:23 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >[1] You decide to stick with bidding 2NT. When partner is maximum [50% >of the time] you will reach game. The actual sequence was uncontested 1NT - 2C, 2NT - pass. So if the pass is not changed, the contract will definitely be 2NT. > Given the actual scenario, it is my view as a bridge player that, once >the L25B options are explained to me, it is clearly better to stick with >2NT except at K/O teams, and slightly better at K/O teams. Even if I >have the maths wrong, sticking with 2NT in the circumstances is >definitely an LA, in my view being a better bet than accepting L25B. No reason to argue over the bridge judgment: I hope we agree on the principle that we must judge whether the result of not choosing the L25B correction can be called "a likely result". (That is not necessarily the same as being an LA, so I do not quite understand your reference to the LA concept.) Should the fact that the player in question has proclaimed that he certainly would choose the correction have any influence on that judgment? I would say no - he may not have understood L25B correctly, and he may be influenced by an incorrect belief that 3NT wins. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 05:26:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 05:26:44 +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 FAA28508 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 05:26:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07318 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:26:23 +0100 Received: from ip103.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.103), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda07309; Sat Dec 4 19:26:13 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: BLML in Digest form? Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 19:26:13 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199912021943.OAA19889@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.2.0.58.19991202152610.00a26130@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991202152610.00a26130@earthlink.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 FAA28513 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 15:30:22 -0600, Brian Baresch wrote: >>The main problem is that of replies to the digest. Some people quote >>and send back the whole day's digest when replying to a single >>article. Then somebody quotes and sends back that, and so on. We can >>end up with hundreds of lines, of which only a few are new. In order >>to avoid this, one must snip replies quite carefully. > >I'm on a list that sets a maximum message size, specifically to avoid that >problem. It works. I don't know whether whether majordomo, BLML's list >software, can do that. It may be possible to have the digests contain some particular text pattern before, between, or after the messages, so that at least a completely quoted digest could be discovered and rejected. >>Another problem >>is that the subject line on a reply is that of the digest, not the >>individual article to which one is replying. One can always copy the >>correct subject line, of course, but many people don't. > >That's a problem without a technological solution. I assume the digests would have a subject line more or less of the form: BLML Digest It would then help if BLML rejected incoming messages with a subject line containing "BLML Digest". Such rejected messages should of course be returned to the sender with a message that explains what the problem is. But this would not be a perfect solution - sometimes (often?) contributors would retype the real subject incorrectly (e.g., with different uppercase/lowercase use), so we would get even more broken threads than we already have. I personally have no use for a digest version, but I would not find it unreasonable to try it out. If it gets many users, then it is probably a good idea to have it; if it gets few users, then their replies will probably not be a significant problem. But regular contributors should of course be encouraged to use the single-message version of the list. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 05:26:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 05:26:45 +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 FAA28509 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 05:26:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07320 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:26:22 +0100 Received: from ip103.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.103), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdc07309; Sat Dec 4 19:26:15 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 19:26:15 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <2sli4s4ik89fk38fvfs43lm5597c8791he@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <004001bf3c4d$7a3c8c40$615e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <004001bf3c4d$7a3c8c40$615e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> 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 FAA28512 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:43:23 +1100, "Peter Gill" wrote: >Jesper wrote: >>Peter Gill wrote: >>>2. Yes. When South discards a spade with four spades visible in >>>dummy, it is a routine assumption that South does not have four >>>spades. East knows that South has eight major suit cards. He can >>>be expected to discard from a five card suit if he has one. With 4-4, >>>looking at that dummy, a heart discard is the only logical one. >> >> >>S also knows from the bidding that E has 4 hearts. >> >And South knows that East has six clubs, one diamond and SAKQ. >So only three rounds of hearts are relevant since there are only >thirteen tricks. Your comment should not matter to a good player, >who should recognise that declarer's fourth heart will be discarded >on a spade. With the disclaimer that my abilities as a bridge player are far below the 2. division standard: You are of course right that his _first_ discard is no problem. But S can see that he will have a serious problem discarding if declarer draws the last trump, and that partner cannot stop the hearts. Unless declarer has 5 hearts and a singleton spade (in which case partner can keep the S Jxxx, and declarer cannot win as long as S keeps 3 hearts), S will then be squeezed. You say that a spade discard on the diamond trick is correct with 5 spades. Should he then not also discard a spade with 4-4 to give declarer the impression that he is 5-3? It seems to me that doing so (preferably without the fumble on the next trick :-) is the best chance of convincing declarer to finesse instead of squeezing him. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 05:56:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 05:56:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.alltel.net (mail.alltel.net [166.102.165.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA28584 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 05:56:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from alltel.net (cras18p57.navix.net [207.91.7.59]) by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id MAA02010 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 12:56:21 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3849644F.D50A4409@alltel.net> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 12:58:23 -0600 From: Norman Hostetler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-Alltel IS (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hand notation References: <077601bf3e22$81bfbce0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3848D8DC.3A00B206@relaypoint.net> <07b101bf3e64$51cffc60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin: You could also go one step further and eliminate most of the hypens. Thus: =5431 means exact order -5431 means any order Combining is possible, but likely to cause confusion; a mixture of fixed and non-fixed suit lengths is probably best dealt with more explicitly and at more length. Flannery is 4S, 5H, and 4 minor suit cards. If you are writing an article on Flannery, doubtless you could resort to notation after the first reference: =45-31, when discussing how to respond to 2NT with this hand pattern. Norm Hostetler "Marvin L. French" wrote: > Irwin J. Kostal wrote, in regard to 5=4=3=1 showing exact distribution:: > > > Marvin: As a logical (?) extension of your procedure, the multiplicity > > of equal signs could be deemed superfluous, and we could reduce it to > > =5431 or possibly 5=431. I'm sort of attracted by =5431; seems like > it > > does the job with a minimum of repetitious stuff. > > > Good point, Irv, and yes, =5431 seems best if you want to do away with > multiple equal signs. I presume you would retain the standard hyphens > (e.g., 5-4-3-1) when each number could represent any suit. > > Retaining multiple equal signs might be necessary if the idea is to be > extended to combining exact lengths with inexact ones. For instance > =5=4-3-1 could show five spades, four hearts, and either =3=1 or =1=3 in > the minors. Flannery? Perhaps =4=5{4}, meaning four spades, five hearts, > and the remaining cards randomly distributed between the minor suits.. > > That gets us into esoteric notations that few players would be willing > to accept. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 07:47:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 07:47:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail3.relaypoint.net (mail3.relaypoint.net [207.213.107.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28837 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 07:47:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from relaypoint.net (dsl-207-105-45-142.hollywood.relaypoint.net [207.105.45.142]) by mail3.relaypoint.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17850; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 12:46:52 -0800 Message-ID: <38497D0D.CBC2D968@relaypoint.net> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 12:43:57 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@relaypoint.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Norman Hostetler CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hand notation References: <077601bf3e22$81bfbce0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3848D8DC.3A00B206@relaypoint.net> <07b101bf3e64$51cffc60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3849644F.D50A4409@alltel.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is also a treatment I've seen that works like this: 54(3,1), so maybe we could have =54(3,1) -54(3,1) =54xx (or =54(x,x)?) -54xx Does any of this solve the ten and eleven card suit problem? How about =E101, which is clearer than 11101, or -Txxx? It seems like a really good notation system could be evolved here. Irv Norman Hostetler wrote: > > Marvin: > > You could also go one step further and eliminate most of the hypens. Thus: > > =5431 means exact order > -5431 means any order > > Combining is possible, but likely to cause confusion; a mixture of fixed and > non-fixed suit lengths is probably best dealt with more explicitly and at > more length. Flannery is 4S, 5H, and 4 minor suit cards. If you are > writing an article on Flannery, doubtless you could resort to notation after > the first reference: =45-31, when discussing how to respond to 2NT with this > hand pattern. > > Norm Hostetler > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > Irwin J. Kostal wrote, in regard to 5=4=3=1 showing exact distribution:: > > > > > Marvin: As a logical (?) extension of your procedure, the multiplicity > > > of equal signs could be deemed superfluous, and we could reduce it to > > > =5431 or possibly 5=431. I'm sort of attracted by =5431; seems like > > it > > > does the job with a minimum of repetitious stuff. > > > > > Good point, Irv, and yes, =5431 seems best if you want to do away with > > multiple equal signs. I presume you would retain the standard hyphens > > (e.g., 5-4-3-1) when each number could represent any suit. > > > > Retaining multiple equal signs might be necessary if the idea is to be > > extended to combining exact lengths with inexact ones. For instance > > =5=4-3-1 could show five spades, four hearts, and either =3=1 or =1=3 in > > the minors. Flannery? Perhaps =4=5{4}, meaning four spades, five hearts, > > and the remaining cards randomly distributed between the minor suits.. > > > > That gets us into esoteric notations that few players would be willing > > to accept. > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 08:26:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 08:26:38 +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 IAA28922 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 08:26:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.43] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11uMhA-000PMP-00; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 21:26:20 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf3e9e$38cee020$2b5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 21:25:34 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! ================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:06 PM Subject: Re: different explanation of bids > I was going to stay out of this one, but I don't understand what has > been said, so I'll put up a straw man that others can knock down. > > Edouard Beauvillain wrote: > > > 1)Australian opponents, (playing skip bids as you will discover ;-) ) > > the auction goes with no bidding from our side, > > 1NT 2C* *general inquiry > > 3D** 5C*** **5cards, good hand *** splinter > > all pass > > > > we were playing with screen so i was the only defender to know that my > RHO > > had a singletonC (i was East) and that we were defending a silly > contract > > > > do you think my partner is entitled to know what is really happening? > > if partner misdefend and we get "only" down 2 or 3 instead of down 5 > can we > > get redress? > > (I think no but i want confirmation) > > If the splinter was truly a partnership agreement, declarer must call > the TD before the opening lead to report the failure to Alert, > +=+ with screens? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 09:53:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 09:53:21 +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 JAA29117 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 09:53:14 +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, 4 Dec 1999 14:53:01 -0800 Message-ID: <082a01bf3eaa$0999cca0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <000d01bf3e9e$38cee020$2b5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 14:50:57 -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 From: Grattan ENDICOTT > To: Marvin L. French, who wrote: > > > I was going to stay out of this one, but I don't understand what has > > been said, so I'll put up a straw man that others can knock down. > > > > Edouard Beauvillain wrote: > > > > > 1)Australian opponents, (playing skip bids as you will discover ;-) ) > > > the auction goes with no bidding from our side, > > > 1NT 2C* *general inquiry > > > 3D** 5C*** **5cards, good hand *** splinter > > > all pass > > > > > > we were playing with screen so i was the only defender to know that my > > RHO > > > had a singletonC (i was East) and that we were defending a silly > > contract > > > > > > do you think my partner is entitled to know what is really happening? > > > if partner misdefend and we get "only" down 2 or 3 instead of down 5 > > can we > > > get redress? > > > (I think no but i want confirmation) > > > > If the splinter was truly a partnership agreement, declarer must call > > the TD before the opening lead to report the failure to Alert, > > > +=+ with screens? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think so. Declarer will certainly know there was no Alert on the other side when 5C gets passed. This MI must be reported right away, nicht wahr? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 10:33:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 10:33:26 +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 KAA29221 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 10:33:18 +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, 4 Dec 1999 15:33:09 -0800 Message-ID: <083601bf3eaf$a3ed4ca0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <077601bf3e22$81bfbce0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3848D8DC.3A00B206@relaypoint.net> <07b101bf3e64$51cffc60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3849644F.D50A4409@alltel.net> <38497D0D.CBC2D968@relaypoint.net> Subject: Re: Hand notation Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 15:26:51 -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: Irwin J Kostal > There is also a treatment I've seen that works like this: 54(3,1), so > maybe we could have =54(3,1) > -54(3,1) > =54xx (or =54(x,x)?) > -54xx > > Does any of this solve the ten and eleven card suit problem? How about > =E101, which is clearer than 11101, or -Txxx? > That looks like hex, so why not employ hex?: B101. Besides, you will have trouble with 12 and 13. For those unacquainted with the hexadecimal system, it is base 16 instead of base 10, and the numbers go 0123456789ABCDEF, which is 0 to 15 in base 10 (decimal) Of course base 14 would be identical for card distributions in a hand, since 13 base 10 (=D) would be the highest number, but who ever heard of using base 14 for anything? Hey guys and gals, we should be trying to develop notations that the majority of players will readily accept. I think we are getting too far afield. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 13:05:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 13:05:13 +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 NAA29570 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 13:05:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg33.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.99]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA00700 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 21:04:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991204210216.00750b64@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 21:02:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: different explanation of bids In-Reply-To: <082a01bf3eaa$0999cca0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <000d01bf3e9e$38cee020$2b5408c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:50 PM 12/4/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: > >From: Grattan ENDICOTT >> +=+ with screens? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >I think so. Declarer will certainly know there was no Alert on the other >side when 5C gets passed. This MI must be reported right away, nicht >wahr? I've never played with screens, and I presume that regulations regarding their appropriate usage are the province of the SO. But in general, a rule requiring declarer to point out his partner's misexplanation/alert/failure to alert in such cases seems quite ridiculous, since by design, that information will be unavailable in most instances. Declarer in this case might make a pretty good guess about the failure to alert, but the fact remains that he cannot know what happened on the other side of the screen, without a certain amount of inappropriate by-play. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 13:50:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 13:50:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.alltel.net (mail.alltel.net [166.102.165.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29684 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 13:50:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from alltel.net (cras18p71.navix.net [207.91.7.73]) by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id UAA22223 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 20:49:59 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3849D326.DB664C77@alltel.net> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 20:51:18 -0600 From: Norman Hostetler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-Alltel IS (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hand notation References: <077601bf3e22$81bfbce0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3848D8DC.3A00B206@relaypoint.net> <07b101bf3e64$51cffc60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3849644F.D50A4409@alltel.net> <38497D0D.CBC2D968@relaypoint.net> <083601bf3eaf$a3ed4ca0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hey, Marvin, don't be jealous just because this thread is finally getting somewhere. I think that the notation suggestions are starting to get very simple and very clear. To wit: "Describe Flannery." Ans: =45xx. What could be simpler? or more obvious? Or, if you want specifically to discuss Flannery hands with 3-1 minors, then =45-31. When baseball box scores have to report an inning in which 10 or more runs are scored, they put that number in parentheses. I'm not particularly concerned about 11+ card suits, because in all my 45 years of bridge, I've never seen one. However, I did hold a =3(10)00 hand once, and an opponent once held -(10)210. Norm Hostetler "Marvin L. French" wrote: > From: Irwin J Kostal > > > There is also a treatment I've seen that works like this: 54(3,1), so > > maybe we could have =54(3,1) > > -54(3,1) > > =54xx (or =54(x,x)?) > > -54xx > > > > Does any of this solve the ten and eleven card suit problem? How > about > > =E101, which is clearer than 11101, or -Txxx? > > > That looks like hex, so why not employ hex?: B101. Besides, you will > have trouble with 12 and 13. > > For those unacquainted with the hexadecimal system, it is base 16 > instead of base 10, and the numbers go 0123456789ABCDEF, which is 0 to > 15 in base 10 (decimal) > > Of course base 14 would be identical for card distributions in a hand, > since 13 base 10 (=D) would be the highest number, but who ever heard of > using base 14 for anything? > > Hey guys and gals, we should be trying to develop notations that the > majority of players will readily accept. I think we are getting too far > afield. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 15:34:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 15:34:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from slot0-9.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (root@slot0-9.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29922 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 15:33:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-134.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA32443 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 23:30:35 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 23:30:34 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After my last gaffe, I'll try to be more careful... There are several places where the ACBL mandates the Work point count. Referencing the GCC: - 1C or 1D conventional must contain at least 10 HCP. - Forcing 1NT openings must contain at least 16 HCP. - A 2C opening showing a 3 suiter must contain at least 10 HCP. - A 2D opening showing both majors must contain at least 10 HCP. - A 2D opening showing a 3 suiter must contain at least 10 HCP. - Other 2 level 2 suited (suit) openings must contain at least 10 HCP. - Artificial responses are only permitted over one level suit openings which show at least 15 HCP. - Artificial responses over weak two bids are only permitted when the range of the weak two is limited to 7 HCP. - Conventional responses to 1NT are only permitted when 1NT shows at least 10 HCP and has a range of at most 5 HCP. - Opening bids at the one level must contain at least 8 HCP. Every reference to points in the GCC specifically states "high card" points. Perhaps the GCC really means "x HCP or equivalent strength". After the Meckstroth article in the Bulletin several years ago damning opening a 10-12 1NT on an excellent 9 count, I believe they really mean "x HCP". I'd be delighted if someone shows me that I'm wrong here. :-). Bruce Tim Goodwin , wrote: : At 2:38 PM -0500 12/2/99, Tim Goodwin wrote: :>Does an NCBO have the authority to compel players to evaluate their hands :>in any particular manner? Or putting it more bluntly, does the ACBL Board :>of Directors have the authority to force players to count their points? : I don't think there is really any such authority under the Laws; the ACBL : cannot prevent players from using judgment. : And, in general, it doesn't; there is just the specific point issue of 10 : HCP minimum for a 1NT. In any other case, judgment is allowed even if it : causes regulations to be violated. (For example, if you play a 5-11 range : for yoru weak 2S opening, you may open it on KJT9xx T9x xxx x without : losing the right to play conventional responses.) :>I am not asking about disclosure. Given the prevalence of reliance on :>4-3-2-1, it is surely reasonable for the NCBO to require disclosure in :>those terms. : Agreed, and there are some common examples. When I play Jacoby 2NT, for : example, I explain the sequence 1H-2NT-3H as "no singleton or void, and : five or fewer losers; usually equivalent to 17 or more HCP." :>Also, what is an average hand? This is relevant because the Laws allow :>regulation of opening one bids which could show a hand that is a king below :>average strength. : An average hand is intended here to mean average in high-card values. For : example, if you evaluate hands by the losing-trick count, an opening bid : requires seven losers, but AQxxxxx x xx xxxx, despite its seven losers, is : below average strength, and bidding 1S on this hand should be subject to : regulation. : The average hand in high-card values is a hand with one card of each rank, : and a hand is a king below that average if replacing a low spot card in the : hand by a king would not make it above average, according to whatever : system you use for evaluating high cards. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 16:06:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 16:06:17 +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 QAA29981 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 16:06:09 +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, 4 Dec 1999 21:05:58 -0800 Message-ID: <089601bf3ede$18280140$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr><07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com><000d01bf3e9e$38cee020$2b5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.19991204210216.00750b64@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 20:54:07 -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: > At 02:50 PM 12/4/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: > > > >From: Grattan ENDICOTT > >> +=+ with screens? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > >I think so. Declarer will certainly know there was no Alert on the other > >side when 5C gets passed. This MI must be reported right away, nicht > >wahr? > > I've never played with screens, and I presume that regulations regarding > their appropriate usage are the province of the SO. But in general, a rule > requiring declarer to point out his partner's misexplanation/alert/failure > to alert in such cases seems quite ridiculous, since by design, that > information will be unavailable in most instances. Declarer in this case > might make a pretty good guess about the failure to alert, but the fact > remains that he cannot know what happened on the other side of the screen, > without a certain amount of inappropriate by-play. > I should have written "when 5C gets passed out." Of course he would say nothing until the auction is over. His partner is then dummy, so there's no UI. Surely there is no harm in his making sure that both opponents know what his 5C bid meant? He could ask, "Was five clubs Alerted over there?", but he knows the answer so that's a waste of breath. Just call the TD. I am also unfamiliar with screens, so maybe I just don't understand the issue here. Is there something about screens that nullifies disclosure requirements even when UI is not involved? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 16:20:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA00131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 16:20:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (mailhop1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00121 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 16:20:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com ([10.92.226.121]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 00:18:37 -0500 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, 5 Dec 1999 00:12:16 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 00:09:09 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marv French wrote: >However, if the defense is adversely affected by the >mistake, the TD will rule MI and adjust the score unless there is >evidence that no agreement existed. Such evidence would be difficult to >provide, since there is probably nothing about this on the CC. It is said, correctly I think, that it is impossible to prove a negative. Of course, one could require pairs to have a list of agreements they don't have. :-) 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/AwUBOEn2Gb2UW3au93vOEQIATgCfRqf2kjoNrOSSYlJk/88geJ61wQwAoNj5 2ZjftwBYITZupRm+/9GcdkKj =U5NJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 18:16:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:16:22 +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 SAA00341 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:16:12 +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, 4 Dec 1999 23:16:02 -0800 Message-ID: <08ad01bf3ef0$3f231480$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 23:11:57 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > Marv French wrote: > > >However, if the defense is adversely affected by the > >mistake, the TD will rule MI and adjust the score unless there is > >evidence that no agreement existed. Such evidence would be difficult to > >provide, since there is probably nothing about this on the CC. > > It is said, correctly I think, that it is impossible to prove a negative. > > Of course, one could require pairs to have a list of agreements they don't > have. :-) > Seriously, it behooves pairs to cover as many auctions as possible in their system notes, so that they don't find themselves having to prove a negative. About 500 single-spaced pages should be enough for most pairs. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 5 18:16:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:16:22 +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 SAA00340 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:16:12 +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, 4 Dec 1999 23:16:01 -0800 Message-ID: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 23:04:18 -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: > > There are several places where the ACBL mandates the Work point count. > Referencing the GCC: > > - 1C or 1D conventional must contain at least 10 HCP. > - Forcing 1NT openings must contain at least 16 HCP. > - A 2C opening showing a 3 suiter must contain at least 10 HCP. > - A 2D opening showing both majors must contain at least 10 HCP. > - A 2D opening showing a 3 suiter must contain at least 10 HCP. > - Other 2 level 2 suited (suit) openings must contain at least > 10 HCP. > - Artificial responses are only permitted over one level suit > openings which show at least 15 HCP. > - Artificial responses over weak two bids are only permitted > when the range of the weak two is limited to 7 HCP. > - Conventional responses to 1NT are only permitted when 1NT > shows at least 10 HCP and has a range of at most 5 HCP. > - Opening bids at the one level must contain at least 8 HCP. > > Every reference to points in the GCC specifically states "high card" > points. > > Perhaps the GCC really means "x HCP or equivalent strength". After the > Meckstroth article in the Bulletin several years ago damning opening a > 10-12 1NT on an excellent 9 count, I believe they really mean "x HCP". > I'd be delighted if someone shows me that I'm wrong here. :-). > Please explain "damning," not understood. Meckstroth does not determine ACBL policy, by the way. I'll repeat what I found in the ACBL's *Duplicate Decisions* page 34. It says there, quoting a *Bulletin* article (Feb 1978) by Don Oakie, that deviations as much as a queen (!) from "agreed or announced strengths" are permissible, provided they are not frequent. That would seem to permit judgment when evaluating the strength of a hand, as when players recognize that honors in combination are worth more than isolated honors, 10s and 9s are worth something, the 4-3-2-1 count undervalues aces and kings in relation to queens and jacks, and it is better to have high cards in long suits than in short suits. For instance, I play a 16-18 HCP 1NT opening, with a jump rebid of 2NT showing 19-20 HCP, but would open 1NT with S- KJ10 H-AQ9 D-AJ98 C-987, (15 HCP), and just 1C with S-K432 H-AQ D-J543 C-AQ4 (16 HCP, but not good enough for 1NT). At the other end, I would open 1NT with S-KQ2 H-KQJ D-AK2 C-J432 (19 HCP, but not good enough for a jump rebid of 2NT), but 1C with S-AK98 H-AQ9 D-1032 C-AJ9 (18 HCP, but too good for 1NT). Such deviations from the stated HCP range are permitted by *Duplicate Decisions*, although Don Oakie did not have hand evaluation in mind when he wrote that opinion. He regarded such variations as part of the game, labeling them "bridge tactics." Oakie was a pro, and pros like to open 1NT a point or two light when playing with a client. They do it all the time, and it is very noticeable that the ACBL is reluctant to enforce any regulation that the pros dislike. Hence, IMO those HCP requirements mean "x HCP, with occasional minor deviations permitted." Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 06:16:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 06:16:31 +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 GAA02279 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 06:16:18 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09920 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 20:16:08 +0100 Received: from ip156.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.156), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb09915; Sun Dec 5 20:16:02 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 20:16:03 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <6tal4s8vph3gfikr2k33tf2pnqvc39odop@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <99Nov30.234745cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> In-Reply-To: <99Nov30.234745cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 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 GAA02285 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:45:08 +0100, "Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen" wrote: >7. Spade 10 - (fumble) Spade 5 - Spade 7 - Spade J An interesting point in L73F2 is that it requires the TD to determine whether an innocent player "has drawn a false inference ...". There is no mention of any objective standard: it seems to me that the TD is not asked to determine whether it was reasonable to draw this false inference, only whether the player actually did so. Before I embark on a discussion of the problems with L73F2, I would like to make it very clear that I see no reason whatsoever to suspect anybody of foul play in the actual case: I trust that S made an inadvertent fumble (and either did not know that he could have told E so or did not realize that his fumble could seem significant), and that it actually influenced E's decision. I was not the TD, and I am not a member the AC. The first time I heard of this case it was described to me by one of S's team-mates. The impression I got then differs from the determination of the TD (who had interviewed everybody present, including one or two kibitzers) and is probably only the somewhat incorrect subjective impression of S, but it is interesting as a theoretical case anyway: I got the impression that S had taken hold of a card in tempo and was moving it towards the table, when he suddenly stopped, looking at it for a moment, and then completed the movement to play it (the S5). My immediate reaction to that, before I had heard the rest of the story, was that this sounds very much like somebody who had grabbed the wrong card, suddenly discovered that, and then decided to play it anyway. (Which is indeed what S says happened: he thought he was playing the S8.) If I had been declarer, and if S's action had actually appeared that way to me, I would never draw a false inference, because it would seem to me that S was not thinking about anything other than why it was the S5 he was holding in his hand. But if were an unethical player, nothing would be simpler for me than to finesse and claim afterwards that I would not have done so without the fumble - which is probably absolutely correct, since the fumble made it safe for me to finesse. Or, probably more relevant, what if the fumble was such that it seemed to probably, but not certainly, be a purely mechanical fumble? This would very slightly increase the chances of the finesse being right, and would of course be one of the factors I would take into account when making my choice. So I choose to finesse, go down, and tell the TD, perfectly truthfully, that the fumble was part of the basis for my decision to finesse. Should the TD adjust in such a case? And if he should, is it any wonder that declarers will choose to finesse in the future, even though they may be almost certain that the fumble was just mechanical? I think L73F2 ought to make it a requirement for adjustment that the TD judges not only that the player actually drew a false inference, but also that the fumble was one that could reasonably induce that false inference. Otherwise we cannot refuse to adjust except by calling the player a liar. A slightly different situation could be one in which a player fumbles, and declarer then plays him for a missing honour card, even though nobody, with or without that honour card, would have anything to think about. L73F2 seems to require us to adjust anyway, provided we are satisfied that the declarer did draw that false inference, no matter how silly the inference is. This makes it advantageous for declarers in such situations to draw inferences from fumbles without thinking too much about whether the inference is reasonable: as long as they actually draw that inference, they cannot lose. A different question: what exactly is a "demonstrable bridge reason"? It seems to me that discovering that the card you are in the process of playing is the S5 instead of the S8 is certainly a bridge reason for a tempo break, though possibly not "demonstrable". Does "demonstrable" mean that the reason must be one that the other players could expect you to have holding your actual cards? Finally, assume that S had said "sorry, that was just a mechanical fumble". Then there would be no problem here. But what if S says so, declarer plays for the drop, and S turned out to have started with Jxxxx? Do we agree that you are allowed to say "sorry, that was just a mechanical fumble" even if you do have the honour that declarer might think you could have been considering playing? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 09:06:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:06:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02672 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:05:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from idefix (cph43.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.43]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA12125 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 23:05:37 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199912052205.XAA12125@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 23:02:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Another hand from the Danish NA Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is a hand where the Danish NA overturned a judgment ruling made by a local AC. Danish National Teams, 3rd Division N 84 S W N E All AQ72 P 1C 9653 3S X P 4C T82 P 4D P 5C QT3 6 P P P K984 J63 KQ874 AJT2 9 KQ765 AKJ9752 6 tricks, NS +500 T5 - AJ43 The double was not alerted. It is alertable as per the Danish regulations. West does not correct E's missing alert before the opening lead. NS's CC declares weak jump overcalls, but does not explicitly mention double jump overcalls. EW's CC mentions negative doubles, but not at how high a level EW play them. N claims damage, since he perceived the double as a penalty double, which discouraged him from doubling 5C. If 3S had been alerted, he would have doubled 5C. The TD and the local AC accepted this and awarded NS +1400. The NA overturned this with the words: We cannot imagine that a player in the 3rd division can be so unprepared that this might not be a pure penalty double that he neither consults the CC nor asks about the bid when he is of the impression that the meaning of the double is decisive for his own call. The NA thus found that there was MI, but that the MI did not cause the damage. The NA did not award a fine for the missing alert. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 09:06:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:06:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02673 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:05:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from idefix (cph43.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.43]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA12135 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 23:05:41 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199912052205.XAA12135@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 23:02:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Self-inflicted damage? Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The Danish NA receives reports of all local AC decisions in national level tournaments, in order to allow us to detect areas where additional guidance is warranted. Usually the decisions are sensible, and although the bridge judgement offered is sometimes debatable, it is never horribly wrong. Here is one where I think the overall decision is debatable. It is also somewhat entertaining. Ladies National Teams, 2nd division N/NS A9 S W N E KQ6 1nt 2S* JT932 p 4S p p A85 p J84 KQT653 J972 T3 AKQ 6 K94 QJ76 11 tricks, EW 450 72 A854 8754 T32 2S shows 5+ spades and 4+ in a minor suit according to the CC. It was not alerted. S is on lead, and asks about 2S; W answers "spade suit", thinks for a while, and as S is about to lead she says "no, wait!" S states that she no longer wants an answer, leads the D8, and poof go declarer's losing hearts. S calls the TD after the play, claiming damage, since she would have led the HA had she been told about E's minor suit. W says that she was about to explain about the minor suit when she was silenced. The TD and subsequently the local AC adjust the score to 9 tricks on the lead of the HA. E said nothing throughout. She should have corrected partner's explanation, and there would have been no case. Everybody has made a mess of it by not calling the director. If I had been the director, I would have ruled that South was the cause of her own damage (L9B1a), so there is no reason to adjust the score. I am usually reluctant to use the word "double shot", but it does seem to fit South's claim for damage. Further I would have hit E with a PP worth 11 imps, which seems to be the damage her silence could have caused. Of course, the same net result would have been obtained by adjusting the score and taking away compensation from South by ruling that it is an irrational action to silence West. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 09:06:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:06:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02671 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:05:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from idefix (cph43.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.43]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA12132 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 23:05:39 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199912052205.XAA12132@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 23:02:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Reopening the auction after the final pass Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk L21B and L17E together indicate that in some cases the final pass of the auction can be taken back and the auction reopened. Say South is about to become the declarer, but before the opening lead is faced, he corrects an explanation given by N. W, who called the final pass of the auction, and who has made a face-down opening lead before the correction, now insists that he would have bid differently, had he been given the correct explanation. So the TD - uses L21B1, - notes that the auction period has not ended, - allows the final pass to be taken back, - orders that the the face-down opening lead be taken back, - and lets the auction continue, possibly for several rounds. When the TD rules like this, he needs to make a few points about AI and UI: - W's earlier final pass is AI to E and UI to NS. - S's correction is AI to EW and UI to N. Do you agree that this is a correct procedure? If not, please let me know! The reference from L21B to L17E could lead to the impression that this type of ruling is intended by the lawmakers. We recently discussed this in the Danish Laws Commission, and we could not agree that the scenario offered above was indeed the intended interpretation of L21B in connection with L17E. The skeptical argument goes like this: The laws are very careful to forbid correction of partner's ostensibly mistaken explanations until such a time that the correction will be worthless to partner. But apparently this principle does not hold in the scenario given here. It would seem inconsistent of the lawmakers to give the final pass by a designated defender such a special status. At this stage in the discussion, the Danish LC feels that it owes it to its TDs to remove the doubt raised about this interpretation of L21B (with L17E). We will eventually put this to a vote if we cannot agree. I am hoping that BLML could help us make an easy, unanimous decision. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 11:14:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:14:46 +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 LAA03081 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:14:33 +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 11uice-0006o7-00; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 21:51:08 +0100 Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 20:05:07 +0100 (MET DST) To: Subject: another hesitation case 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 about the following case happened in the 1-st league of the Hungarian Team Championship. AK10 AQ74 857 K86 - J97542 K832 - AKQ94 J3 QJ52 A10973 Q863 J10965 1076 4 Bidding W N E S 1D Dbl 1Sp 4H Dbl P 4Sp Dbl P* P 5Cl P P Dbl all Pass * after agreed hesitation Would you accept the 5Cl bid? Thanks. Andras Booc martaandras@uze.net From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 11:41:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:41:09 +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 LAA03216 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:40:58 +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 11umCk-000M3K-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 00:40:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:02:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <3.0.1.32.19991201213635.0076f0f0@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991201213635.0076f0f0@pop.mindspring.com> <2HX9mQBjmmR4Ew26@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19991202213930.0074f038@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991202213930.0074f038@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 12:44 PM 12/2/99 +0000, David S wrote: >> Or you can go with a compromise of some rules, not too difficult to >>remember, and every so often you reach a position where as a result of >>the basic simplicity, the structure is unhelpful. Are you sure that >>because of this *one* case you can say that Polish alerting overall is >>more sensible than Dutch? >> >No, I think the ACBL has done some sensible things with regard to >alert/disclosure systems, starting with announcements in some obvious >cases. I think there is in general a tendency, best exhibited with some of >the more arcane aspects of the ACBL approach, to try and cut things too >fine, with the very results you have described. > >I am not unsympathetic to the difficulties faced by those who seek to >address these problems constructively, and I know that it is easier to sit >on the sidelines and take potshots at the efforts of others than it is to >actually build effective systems. But the case at hand is actually not too >difficult. The problem comes from the assumption that it must be right to >alert any uncommon treatment, even when natural. It is not actually helpful >to adopt that principle, as this case shows. No, it gives an example. When the bidding goes 1D X P 1H you may not want an alert if 1H shows extra values, but most of us do. This [being a different example] does not have the downside that the other example did, since this position is rarely alerted. I might just as well say that it is good to alert an uncommon treatment: "It is actually helpful to adopt that principle, as this case shows". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 11:41:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:41:21 +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 LAA03223 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:41:10 +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 11umCk-000M3J-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 00:40:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:58:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <2HX9mQBjmmR4Ew26@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > >> When you construct an alerting system, you either make it very simple, >> but include several problems, especially for the lower ranks, as the >> Australian alerting, or you compromise on a medium complicated one, with >> fewer basic problems, but some glaring anomalies, as the Dutch, or you >> make it pretty accurate, as in the ACBL, and no-one gets it right. >> >> There is no easy solution. You can avoid anomalies by the ACBL >> approach, and no-one fully understands their alerts. You can avoid >> anomalies by a very simple alerting system, and get some terrible side- >> effects. Non-alerts of any doubles means that you lose the effect of >> alerting you: consider 1H x: fancy having to check in case it turns out >> to be spades and clubs! > >I almost feel constained to defend the Australian approach. :)) > >The terrible side-effects aren't that terrible in the sense that the >example above is what is termed a "Self alerting" call. These calls don't >require an alert during the auction, but such agreements do require a >pre-alert before the start of the round. The ABF convention card has a >specific area for such pre-alerts. Any pair having such an agreement and >not pre-alerting it would expect to be ruled against if the opponents were >damaged. I don't care, I don't like it, and I don't see any advantages *on the first round*. I am happy with a rule stopping alerts of doubles after opener rebids which is when they get iffy but there is no reason I can possibly think of to stop a pair who plays 1H x as S+C alerting it. The reasons given for non-alerting of doubles [spare me the "self-alerting" name which reminds me of the drink "Ribena Toothkind" for sheer awfulness] always are good for later rounds and the first round seems to have been included by accident. >Australians essentially know that they can't make any assumption about a >"self-alerting call". Having to ask is not a great imposition. >Most players now make it part of their routine to ascertain (before the >commencement of the round) their opponents doubling structure in the same >way one checks the opponents basic system, NT range and minimum suit >length requirements to open. I have enough difficulty remembering my own system, thanks very much, without having to remember someone else's. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 11:41:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:41:21 +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 LAA03222 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:41:10 +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 11umCk-000M3M-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 00:40:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:05:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <3.0.6.32.19991202143848.00881410@mail.maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robert E. Harris wrote: >The 12-9-7-5-3 point count (for AKQJT) gives 144 points in a standard 52 >card deck. The 4321 count gives 40 HCP in the deck. On a proportional >basis, (15/40)x144 = 54 points for a minimum (15 HCP) 1 NT. >JTx-QJT-QJT-KQJT (13 HCP) is 62 points while Axx-Axx-Axx-Axxx (16 HCP) is >48 points. So the ACBL would have trouble dealing with a 12-9 bidder who >automatically opens 1 NT on the 13 HCP hand and says the 16 HP hand is too >weak to open 1 NT. They just wouldn't let [it(?), them(?), you(?)] do it. > >(Note resolutions of gender problem in last sentence. The Chinese way?) > >This is a real problem in translating the old Vienna count, as I found when >I was reading the English version of Dr. Stern's book on the Vienna system. >I think anyone using the Vienna count would now and then run into director >calls. Honor trick count (Culbertson) would probably meet the same trouble >now. Few under 70 know about it. *coff* I learnt using Culbertson honour-tricks - and I am not quite seventy yet! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 6 14:08:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:08:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from slot0-57.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-57.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03524 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:08:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-57.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA05778 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 22:07:24 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 22:07:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmm... "Damning". I couldn't remember the exact words Meckstroth used, so I looked them up. It's August 1995 issue of Bulletin, p.13 for anyone who wants to read the whole thing. It's in a column called "Ethics at the Bridge Table". Even the title suggests deviations are unethical! A few snips: "ACBL has a rule that a 1NT opening must contain at least 10 high-car(sic) points or the user may not play any conventions (Stayman, Gerber, etc.) in conjunction with it. A 1NT opening of fewer than 10 HCP is deemed to be destructive. (I {this is JM talking --bjm} must agree!) So is it okay to open 1NT with a great 9-point hand that is worth 10? No. It's certainly okay to open a 15-17 NT with 14; why not here? "Borrowing" a point to open a strong 1 NT is not destructive in any way, but the mini-notrump is a destructive device. Its best results occur when the opponents own the hand and miss their game or slam. That is the reason for the rigid line drawn at 10 HCP". Meckstroth continues by stating that a pair that uses judgement twice to open a 9 point hand 1NT will no longer be allowed to play conventions over their NT! He advises players that encounter 9 HCP 1NT openings to call the director and to file a recorder memo! In response to several letters he continues to say how different 9 HCP hands are from 10 HCP hands in the November issue. He opines that a 9 HCP 1NT opening is destructive, but a 10 HCP 1NT opening is not. All this sounds pretty "damning" to me, especially the recorder memos. It's a pretty clear implication that folks who open 9 point hands with a 10-12 1NT are cheating or are suspected of cheating. In reality, they may just be exercising bridge judgment to treat some good 9 point hands and some bad 13 point hands as worth 10-12. For the record, I believe the article to be utter hogwash. It smells of bad politics -- perhaps pressure was applied for Jeff to write it. It might be instructive to know when the ACBL prohibited conventional responses to 9-12 NT openings. I suspect this event occurred after Don Oakie's 1978 article. Marvin? I believe that regulations such as these should use terms similar to those used in the FLB (e.g., "a king or more below average strength"). That would allow the ACBL to regulate such things without prohibiting players from using a different hand evaluation method or their own judgement. Bruce Marvin L. French wrote: : Bruce J. Moore wrote: :> :> There are several places where the ACBL mandates the Work point count. :> Referencing the GCC: :> :> 10 HCP references snipped :> :> Every reference to points in the GCC specifically states "high card" :> points. :> :> Perhaps the GCC really means "x HCP or equivalent strength". After : the :> Meckstroth article in the Bulletin several years ago damning opening a :> 10-12 1NT on an excellent 9 count, I believe they really mean "x HCP". :> I'd be delighted if someone shows me that I'm wrong here. :-). :> : Please explain "damning," not understood. Meckstroth does not determine : ACBL policy, by the way. : I'll repeat what I found in the ACBL's *Duplicate Decisions* page 34. It : says there, quoting a *Bulletin* article (Feb 1978) by Don Oakie, that : deviations as much as a queen (!) from "agreed or announced strengths" : are permissible, provided they are not frequent. That would seem to : permit judgment when evaluating the strength of a hand, as when players : recognize that honors in combination are worth more than isolated : honors, 10s and 9s are worth something, the 4-3-2-1 count undervalues : aces and kings in relation to queens and jacks, and it is better to have : high cards in long suits than in short suits. : {reasonable examples of why good players use judgement snipped} : Hence, IMO those HCP requirements mean "x HCP, with occasional minor : deviations permitted." : Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 14:52:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:43 +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 OAA03539 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:25 +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 11uoYN-000PvA-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 03:11:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 01:37:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: different explanation of bids References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Edouard Beauvillain wrote: >Hi everybody ! > >I have been watching (or is it listening to ?) for a while and this is my >first try, hope it is not the last one :-) Bienvenu! >Sorry David i have no cats... Pity - but we forgive 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 Mon Dec 6 15:28:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 15:28:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03779 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 15:28:08 +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 ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 20:27:57 -0800 Message-ID: <090c01bf3fa2$3212adc0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912052205.XAA12135@isa.dknet.dk> Subject: Re: Self-inflicted damage? Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 20:26:44 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Jens & Bodil To: Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 2:02 PM Subject: Self-inflicted damage? > The Danish NA receives reports of all local AC decisions in national > level tournaments, in order to allow us to detect areas where > additional guidance is warranted. Usually the decisions are sensible, > and although the bridge judgement offered is sometimes debatable, it > is never horribly wrong. > > Here is one where I think the overall decision is debatable. It is > also somewhat entertaining. > > Ladies National Teams, 2nd division > > N/NS A9 S W N E > KQ6 1nt 2S* > JT932 p 4S p p > A85 p > J84 KQT653 > J972 T3 > AKQ 6 > K94 QJ76 11 tricks, EW 450 > 72 > A854 > 8754 > T32 > > 2S shows 5+ spades and 4+ in a minor suit according to the CC. It was > not alerted. S is on lead, and asks about 2S; W answers "spade suit", > thinks for a while, and as S is about to lead she says "no, wait!" S > states that she no longer wants an answer, leads the D8, and poof go > declarer's losing hearts. > > S calls the TD after the play, claiming damage, since she would have > led the HA had she been told about E's minor suit. W says that she > was about to explain about the minor suit when she was silenced. The > TD and subsequently the local AC adjust the score to 9 tricks on the > lead of the HA. > > E said nothing throughout. She should have corrected partner's > explanation, and there would have been no case. Everybody has made a > mess of it by not calling the director. > > If I had been the director, I would have ruled that South was the > cause of her own damage (L9B1a), so there is no reason to adjust the > score. I am usually reluctant to use the word "double shot", but it > does seem to fit South's claim for damage. Further I would have hit E > with a PP worth 11 imps, which seems to be the damage her silence > could have caused. Of course, the same net result would have been > obtained by adjusting the score and taking away compensation from > South by ruling that it is an irrational action to silence West. It seems to me that E-W *as a pair* acted in time to disclose the meaning of 2S. Just because one of the pair was siltent, and the other one acted just in the nick of time, doesn't affect that fact. Besides, one can assume that South would not have listened to East, since she did not want to hear anything from West. Is South saying that she listens to this East, but not to this West? Not that it matters. E-W (with West as agent) offered an explanation, South refused it. West has satisfied the E-W disclosure requirements.How can you adjust the result when there has been no infraction? Table result stands, and no PP. Maybe a little lecture for East: "Your partner saved your neck. You should have corrected the error yourself immediately after the last pass." Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 15:52:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:45 +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 OAA03548 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:30 +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 11uoYN-000Pv9-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 03:11:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 01:35:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: different explanation of bids References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@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: >If the splinter was truly a partnership agreement, declarer must call >the TD before the opening lead to report the failure to Alert, and, when >asked to do so, explain to your partner that 5C was a splinter bid. The >failure to Alert was MI, which must be corrected at the first legal >opportunity (L75D2). Screens, Marv. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 6 15:58:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 15:58:35 +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 PAA03831 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 15:58:27 +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 ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 20:58:08 -0800 Message-ID: <091801bf3fa6$687851e0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912052205.XAA12125@isa.dknet.dk> Subject: Re: Another hand from the Danish NA Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 20:55:34 -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: Jens & Bodil > Here is a hand where the Danish NA overturned a judgment ruling made > by a local AC. > > Danish National Teams, 3rd Division > > N 84 S W N E > All AQ72 P 1C > 9653 3S X P 4C > T82 P 4D P 5C > QT3 6 P P P > K984 J63 > KQ874 AJT2 > 9 KQ765 > AKJ9752 6 tricks, NS +500 > T5 > - > AJ43 I thought that 5C was a typo, but I guess not. It sure is a weird bid, if 4D is natural and West has not promised club support. The weak East has said (with 4C), "I do not have a three-card club suit," and then felt she most go further (with 5C): "I have five clubs, not just four!" > The double was not alerted. It is alertable as per the Danish > regulations. West does not correct E's missing alert before the > opening lead. NS's CC declares weak jump overcalls, but does not > explicitly mention double jump overcalls. EW's CC mentions negative > doubles, but not at how high a level EW play them. > > N claims damage, since he perceived the double as a penalty double, > which discouraged him from doubling 5C. If 3S had been alerted, he > would have doubled 5C. The TD and the local AC accepted this and > awarded NS +1400. That's baloney. N-S are not playing strong double jumps (Alertable, I presume), so how could North double 5C with 1082 clubs? Besides, a double would certainly have elicited a 5D bid from East. Passing the double would not be "at all probable." 5D doubled goes down two tricks for the same 500, so no damage anyway. > > The NA overturned this with the words: We cannot imagine that a > player in the 3rd division can be so unprepared that this might not > be a pure penalty double that he neither consults the CC nor asks > about the bid when he is of the impression that the meaning of > the double is decisive for his own call. > > The NA thus found that there was MI, but that the MI did not cause > the damage. The NA did not award a fine for the missing alert. > Right decision, questionable reasoning, since there was no damage and North doesn't have a double no matter what the double of 3S means. South does have a possible double, and if it had been South who made the claim of damage, N-S would have had a better case. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 16:49:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:44 +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 OAA03537 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:24 +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 11uoYN-000ADO-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 03:11:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 01:22:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? References: <99Nov30.234745cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> <6tal4s8vph3gfikr2k33tf2pnqvc39odop@bilbo.dit.dk> In-Reply-To: <6tal4s8vph3gfikr2k33tf2pnqvc39odop@bilbo.dit.dk> 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 OAA03553 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:45:08 +0100, "Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen" > wrote: > >>7. Spade 10 - (fumble) Spade 5 - Spade 7 - Spade J > >An interesting point in L73F2 is that it requires the TD to >determine whether an innocent player "has drawn a false inference >...". > >There is no mention of any objective standard: it seems to me >that the TD is not asked to determine whether it was reasonable >to draw this false inference, only whether the player actually >did so. Some time ago, on BLML, I was trying to get people to read the Law book. Now I feel like Pandora. Everyone is reading the damn thing, and coming up with the most horrible conclusions. I think that where an interpretation of the Law might be considered "obvious" we should go with it, even if the actual wording of the Law does not necessarily support it. We are, after all, trying to run a game, not make money for lawyers. No, I don't think the wording of L73 is satisfactory. We have had a number of problems brought out here. If the aim is to get the law- makers to adjust the Laws to get them more watertight, then I am all for it - but I worry when Jesper starts writing stuff like this. Do you really believe, Jesper, that we should actually interpret this Law in this way? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 6 16:52:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:42 +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 OAA03536 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:24 +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 11uoYN-000ADN-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 03:11:08 +0000 Message-ID: <6RaezjAb2wS4EwO5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 01:12:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 25B twice References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2A9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <6cpa4skggodijt0311lrufa0e90l1k2rir@bilbo.dit.dk> <35ni4s88ejku73fhrif1vdd2svbv6qfoqs@bilbo.dit.dk> In-Reply-To: <35ni4s88ejku73fhrif1vdd2svbv6qfoqs@bilbo.dit.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 11:28:23 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: > >>[1] You decide to stick with bidding 2NT. When partner is maximum [50% >>of the time] you will reach game. > >The actual sequence was uncontested 1NT - 2C, 2NT - pass. So if >the pass is not changed, the contract will definitely be 2NT. > >> Given the actual scenario, it is my view as a bridge player that, once >>the L25B options are explained to me, it is clearly better to stick with >>2NT except at K/O teams, and slightly better at K/O teams. Even if I >>have the maths wrong, sticking with 2NT in the circumstances is >>definitely an LA, in my view being a better bet than accepting L25B. > >No reason to argue over the bridge judgment: I hope we agree on >the principle that we must judge whether the result of not >choosing the L25B correction can be called "a likely result". The principle is fine: I just was unhappy with this one. >(That is not necessarily the same as being an LA, so I do not >quite understand your reference to the LA concept.) I get confused occasionally because EBU interpretations tend to make likely calls = LAs, so the results therefrom are similar. >Should the fact that the player in question has proclaimed that >he certainly would choose the correction have any influence on >that judgment? I would say no - he may not have understood L25B >correctly, and he may be influenced by an incorrect belief that >3NT wins. I agree. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 6 17:52:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:50 +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 OAA03566 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:42 +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 11uoYU-000ADN-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 03:11:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 02:41:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Reopening the auction after the final pass References: <199912052205.XAA12132@isa.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <199912052205.XAA12132@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >L21B and L17E together indicate that in some cases the final pass of >the auction can be taken back and the auction reopened. Say South >is about to become the declarer, but before the opening lead is >faced, he corrects an explanation given by N. W, who called the >final pass of the auction, and who has made a face-down opening lead >before the correction, now insists that he would have bid >differently, had he been given the correct explanation. So the TD > > - uses L21B1, > - notes that the auction period has not ended, > - allows the final pass to be taken back, > - orders that the the face-down opening lead be taken back, > - and lets the auction continue, possibly for several rounds. > >When the TD rules like this, he needs to make a few points about AI >and UI: > > - W's earlier final pass is AI to E and UI to NS. > - S's correction is AI to EW and UI to N. > >Do you agree that this is a correct procedure? If not, please let me >know! > >The reference from L21B to L17E could lead to the impression that >this type of ruling is intended by the lawmakers. We recently >discussed this in the Danish Laws Commission, and we could not agree >that the scenario offered above was indeed the intended >interpretation of L21B in connection with L17E. The skeptical >argument goes like this: > >The laws are very careful to forbid correction of partner's >ostensibly mistaken explanations until such a time that the >correction will be worthless to partner. But apparently this >principle does not hold in the scenario given here. It would seem >inconsistent of the lawmakers to give the final pass by a designated >defender such a special status. Sorry, you will have to explain what special status this refers to. If the bidding goes 1S 2H X 3C and then it is explained that double is alertable the 3C bid can be taken back. If the bidding goes 1S 2H X 3C P and then it is explained that double is alertable the 3C bid can be taken back. If the bidding goes 1S 2H X P P P and then it is explained that double is alertable the final pass can be taken back. Where is the inconsistency? Why is one a "special case"? What has L17E to do with it? The lead has not been faced - or if it has, then the call may not be changed. I am sorry, I really do not see your difficulty. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 6 18:21:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:42 +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 OAA03538 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:11:25 +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 11uoYN-000ADP-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 03:11:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 01:26:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit References: <000301bf3cf4$fab95540$176d868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <38478736.35B48529@meteo.fr> <05ba01bf3db2$654bc240$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <002901bf3dc1$2048fd20$9f628cd4@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <002901bf3dc1$2048fd20$9f628cd4@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Konrad's problem is yet another instance of this basic fact: > >Whatever alerting regualtions may exist, it is impossible to play >bridge completely ethically unless all alerted bids are accompanied by >questions and answers (or screens are in use). > >Unfortunately, it is also impossible to play bridge other than slowly >and laboriously if all alerted bids are accompanied by questions and >answers. This dichotomy has been resolved by a great many SOs, >including our own, in favour of the "don't ask unless interested" >approach (which, since it denies contestants a right conferred upon >them by the Laws, is strictly illegal). Interestingly enough, I got asked about this at a Club TD training course over the weekend, so I looked it up. As far as the EBU is concerned, it is a recommendation, no more. > I think that the best that >players can do is to recognise situations in which to both to ask and >not to ask may transmit UI, and always to ask in those situations >only. Regrettably, however, this will lead in practice to a situation >that happened some years ago: > > AKxxx > Kxx > Axx > AQ > > QJxxx > AJx > KQxx > x > >North played in seven spades after this auction: > >S W N E > 1S Pass >4C (1) Pass (2) 4D Pass >4H Pass 5C Pass >5D Pass 6D Pass >7S Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Splinter (2) After asking the meaning of 4C > >East led a trump; North drew trumps, tested diamonds finding them 4-2, >and took the club finesse which lost. The heart finesse would have >worked, and North complained that he was induced to follow the losing >line because of West's interest in the 4C bid. West explained that he >always asked about 4C in this auction in order to avoid transmitting >UI (his side played that if 4C was Swiss, double showed clubs, but if >it was a splinter, double showed hearts; to ask and then pass could >not but convey UI if he were supposed to pass without asking if >disinterested in both clubs and hearts). > >The AC ruled that since North's correct line was to cash HAK, then >take the club finesse and go two down, the table score would stand - >but *they awarded a hefty procedural penalty against West for his >action in asking the meaning of 4C with a Yarborough*. Since it is a recommendation not a regulation, I think this action by the AC was unjustified. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 6 18:59:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:59:35 +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 SAA04064 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:59:25 +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 ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 23:59:16 -0800 Message-ID: <094701bf3fbf$b1397760$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 23:56:36 -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 Moore wrote: > Hmm... "Damning". > > I couldn't remember the exact words Meckstroth used, so I looked > them up. It's August 1995 issue of Bulletin, p.13 for anyone who wants > to read the whole thing. It's in a column called "Ethics at the Bridge > Table". Even the title suggests deviations are unethical! > > A few snips: > > "ACBL has a rule that a 1NT opening must contain at least 10 > high-car(sic) points or the user may not play any conventions > (Stayman, Gerber, etc.) in conjunction with it. A 1NT opening > of fewer than 10 HCP is deemed to be destructive. (I {this is > JM talking --bjm} must agree!) So is it okay to open 1NT with a > great 9-point hand that is worth 10? No. It's certainly okay > to open a 15-17 NT with 14; why not here? > > "Borrowing" a point to open a strong 1 NT is not destructive in > any way, but the mini-notrump is a destructive device. Its best > results occur when the opponents own the hand and miss their > game or slam. That is the reason for the rigid line drawn > at 10 HCP". > > Meckstroth continues by stating that a pair that uses judgement twice > to open a 9 point hand 1NT will no longer be allowed to play conventions > over their NT! > > He advises players that encounter 9 HCP 1NT openings to call the > director and to file a recorder memo! It's a Player Memo, there's no such thing as a recorder memo. > > In response to several letters he continues to say how different 9 HCP > hands are from 10 HCP hands in the November issue. He opines that a > 9 HCP 1NT opening is destructive, but a 10 HCP 1NT opening is not. Funny how slavishly even good players use 4-3-2-1, a rather rough hand evaluation system suitable only for beginners. Mainly it does not account for the fact that honors in combination are worth more than separated honors. S-Kxx H-Qxx D-Axx C-Jxxx, with its 10 HCP, is no better than a 9 HCP hand like S-AJx H-QJx D-xxx C-J10xx. KQx opposite KQx in another suit comes to three playing tricks, but Kxx and Qxx opposite Qxx and Kxx, respectively, comes to less that two playing tricks. The 4-3-2-1 count says both holdings are equal, while honor count gives 2 HC to the first combination and only 1-1/2 to the second. > All this sounds pretty "damning" to me, especially the recorder memos. > It's a pretty clear implication that folks who open 9 point hands with > a 10-12 1NT are cheating or are suspected of cheating. In reality, > they may just be exercising bridge judgment to treat some good 9 point > hands and some bad 13 point hands as worth 10-12. Right. I consider S-Qxx H-Axx D-Kxxx C-KJx to be worth no more than many 12 HCP hands > For the record, I believe the article to be utter hogwash. It smells of > bad politics -- perhaps pressure was applied for Jeff to write it. Yes, some big shot probably got burned by a weakish notrump, and didn't like it. > > It might be instructive to know when the ACBL prohibited conventional > responses to 9-12 NT openings. I suspect this event occurred after > Don Oakie's 1978 article. Marvin? I dunno. Probably so. Not just conventional responses are prohibited, but *any* conventions, including conventions that counter opposing conventions! NCBOs may not control calls (except ultralight openings by system agreement) that are not conventions, but have got around that by pulling the teeth of calls that they don't like by saying that conventions can't be used with them. Don't like weak two bids? Just say that no conventions can be used with them, and they will go away. > > I believe that regulations such as these should use terms similar > to those used in the FLB (e.g., "a king or more below average > strength"). That would allow the ACBL to regulate such things without > prohibiting players from using a different hand evaluation method or > their own judgement. > Hey, that was my suggestion! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 19:29:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:29:48 +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 TAA04117 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:29:40 +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, 6 Dec 1999 00:29:31 -0800 Message-ID: <095601bf3fc3$ea2c2f00$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr><07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 00:21:40 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson < > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >If the splinter was truly a partnership agreement, declarer must call > >the TD before the opening lead to report the failure to Alert, and, when > >asked to do so, explain to your partner that 5C was a splinter bid. The > >failure to Alert was MI, which must be corrected at the first legal > >opportunity (L75D2). > > Screens, Marv. > L75D2 doesn't exempt those playing with screens, does it?. When 5C was passed out, declarer knew the opponent on the other side had not been told what 5C meant. Doesn't he have to tell her? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 19:40:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:40:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04150 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:40:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.106]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 21:08:37 -0800 Message-ID: <092b01bf3fa7$df621a60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: another hesitation case Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 21:01:33 -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 From: > Dear All I would really appreciate your comments about the following > case happened in the 1-st league of the Hungarian > Team Championship. > > AK10 > AQ74 > 857 > K86 > > - J97542 > K832 - > AKQ94 J3 > QJ52 A10973 > > Q863 > J10965 > 1076 > 4 > Bidding > W N E S > 1D Dbl 1Sp 4H > Dbl P 4Sp Dbl > P* P 5Cl P > P Dbl all Pass > > * after agreed hesitation > Would you accept the 5Cl bid? > No! The loudness/quickness of South's double might tell East to run to 5C, but s/he cannot do so after a hesitation by West that suggests that action, since passing the double is not illogical. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 20:00:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:00:01 +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 TAA04208 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:59:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.58] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11utzg-0001dy-00; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:59:41 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01bf3fc8$40985f40$3a5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <99Nov30.234745cet.115201@tst.tst.dk><6tal4s8vph3gfikr2k33tf2pnqvc39odop@bilbo.dit.dk> Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:58:42 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! ================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 1:22 AM Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:45:08 +0100, "Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen" > wrote: > ......................... \x/ ............ > Some time ago, on BLML, I was trying to get people to read the Law book. Now I feel like Pandora. Everyone is reading the damn thing, and coming up with the most horrible conclusions. > +=+ 'Quand la populace se mele de raisonner, tout est perdu' (Voltaire) +=+ I think that where an interpretation of the Law might be considered "obvious" we should go with it, even if the actual wording of the Law does not necessarily support it. We are, after all, trying to run a game, not make money for lawyers > +=+ Nor for professional players. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 6 20:00:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:00:02 +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 TAA04207 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:59:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.58] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11utzf-0001dy-00; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:59:39 +0000 Message-ID: <003a01bf3fc8$3f5afd40$3a5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:48:43 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! ================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 1:37 AM Subject: Re: different explanation of bids > Edouard Beauvillain wrote: > >Hi everybody ! > > > >I have been watching (or is it listening to ?) for a while and this is my > >first try, hope it is not the last one :-) > > Bienvenu! > > >Sorry David i have no cats... > > Pity - but we forgive you! > +=+ I understand royalty prefers 'We'. As for cats, the delightfully aristocratic name might suggest Afghan hounds (or corgis) but never mind, David, maybe he has a railway? ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 01:47:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 01:47:48 +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 BAA04889 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 01:47:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA25724 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:47:29 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:45:05 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Is it an LA to assume partner made a mistake? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a moot case, as the auction at the table was slightly different, but it led to some later discussion. The general question is whether it is an LA to assume that partner has violated bidding theory, and whether this depends on partner's ability. South dealer, E-W vulnerable, matchpoints. S W N E P P 1NT 2D! 2NT! 3H 4C P South's hand: xxx x Axxxxx Qxx. North's 1NT is 12-14 HCP, 2D shows both majors, and 2NT is Lebensohl. N-S have an agreement that they do not show stoppers on Lebensohl sequences when the opponents have two known suits. Thus North can probably infer that South has a minor suit, particularly given that South is a passed hand and that E-W are showing strength. However, North explained 2NT as, "asks me to bid clubs." South's LA's depend on what he would expect North to have for the bid without any UI. The UI may suggest that North has four or five clubs and says nothing about his diamonds, or it may suggest that North understands the bid but doesn't understand the intricacies of proper explanation. E-W argue that South should expect North to have six clubs and two diamonds, and thus passing 4C is a LA. South argues that North would not compete to the 4-level without the expectation of an excellent fit; with six clubs (and not good ones since she didn't open 1C) and two diamonds, expecting to find six diamonds opposite, North should pass. However, with four cards in both minors, North could bid 4C knowing that there was a ten-card fit in whichever minor South held. If you don't accept the bidding theory argument, or believe that E-W are being bridge lawyers and should not be rewarded for it, the case becomes easy, so for purposes of the following discussion, assume that the UI is material and that South's argument is valid. (Modify the South hand as you believe is necessary to make the argument valid so that pass is a LA if North has made a bad bid but not if North kknows what she is doing.) How do you rule if North actually doesn't know that much about bidding theory, and is capable of unilaterally competing to the 4-level without support? Is it an LA to assume that North could hold a hand which she shouldn't have bid but might have bid anyway? (This is a sectional tournament at clubs, and North is a regular at the club, so the director and committee would know her bidding style.) How about if North does understand bidding theory? How about if North does understand th From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 02:52:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:26:47 +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 CAA05240 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:26:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-140.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.140]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA06731 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 16:26:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384BA4FB.8032366F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 12:58:51 +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: different explanation of bids References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <000d01bf3e9e$38cee020$2b5408c3@dodona> <082a01bf3eaa$0999cca0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > the TD before the opening lead to report the failure to Alert, > > > > > +=+ with screens? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I think so. Declarer will certainly know there was no Alert on the other > side when 5C gets passed. This MI must be reported right away, nicht > wahr? > I don't think so. Or at least, I would not advise the players to do so. It would be very difficult for them to make the distinction, at the table, between a wrong explanation and a wrong bid. So all they would be revealing to (the other) opponent (his side already knows of the problem), is that there has been a misunderstanding. Which is non-entitled information. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 03:47:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 03:47:53 +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 DAA05452 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 03:47:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from p00s10a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.170.1] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11v1IB-00003e-00; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:47:16 -0800 Message-ID: <001201bf4009$581de220$01aa93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:49:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 05 December 1999 19:53 Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:45:08 +0100, "Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen" wrote: >7. Spade 10 - (fumble) Spade 5 - Spade 7 - Spade J An interesting point in L73F2 is that it requires the TD to determine whether an innocent player "has drawn a false inference ...". ............... \x/ ................ A different question: what exactly is a "demonstrable bridge reason"? It seems to me that discovering that the card you are in the process of playing is the S5 instead of the S8 is certainly a bridge reason for a tempo break, though possibly not "demonstrable". Does "demonstrable" mean that the reason must be one that the other players could expect you to have holding your actual cards? +=+ The legislators established the principle of demonstrability. They left it to Appeals Committees to set standards by precedent through case law. Under distinguished leadership the WBF has now commenced upon a formal approach to creation of a jurisprudence arising from favoured AC decisions. Which will come along gradually. +=+ Finally, assume that S had said "sorry, that was just a mechanical fumble". Then there would be no problem here. But what if S says so, declarer plays for the drop, and S turned out to have started with Jxxxx? Do we agree that you are allowed to say "sorry, that was just a mechanical fumble" even if you do have the honour that declarer might think you could have been considering playing? +=+ You may care to consider the implications of the statements on page 57 of the 1992 EBL Commentary on the Laws. The position is not the same but the same principle is present. A.8.6 7.5.2. K.9.4.3. Q.J.10 "In No Trumps declarer leads the Spade J; West hesitates, apologizes and plays 2. East realizes West cannot have Spade Q since no apology would be due in that event ...." It goes on to say that the info East has is UI. ~ G ~ +=+ -- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 03:47:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 03:47:53 +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 DAA05451 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 03:47:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from p00s10a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.170.1] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11v1ID-00003e-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:47:17 -0800 Message-ID: <001301bf4009$58f81580$01aa93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 16:44:38 -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: 05 December 1999 05:35 Subject: Re: different explanation of bids > >Of course, one could require pairs to have a list of agreements they don't >have. :-) > +=+ Pairs that do not list (special) agreements surely do not have them.. ? :-( ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 03:51:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:26:57 +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 CAA05252 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:26:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-140.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.140]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA06769 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 16:26:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384BAF7B.D72D8FC1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 13:43:40 +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: Reopening the auction after the final pass References: <199912052205.XAA12132@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: > > At this stage in the discussion, the Danish LC feels that it owes it > to its TDs to remove the doubt raised about this interpretation of > L21B (with L17E). We will eventually put this to a vote if we > cannot agree. I am hoping that BLML could help us make an easy, > unanimous decision. > > I believe there is no use in changing the present interpretations of the Laws. The methods you descrive are correct. I agree however that the Laws are inconsistent in this respect and would favour the retraction of this possibility. It has already been curtailed by not allowing the change of opening lead after dummy has been faced. Moreover, such a change would bring the 'non-screens' game closer to the 'screens' version, in which this possibility is far less likely to occur. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 03:52:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:26:58 +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 CAA05254 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:26:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-140.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.140]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA06785 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 16:26:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384BAFFF.FCEB4A75@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 13:45:51 +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: Reopening the auction after the final pass References: <199912052205.XAA12132@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Sorry, you will have to explain what special status this refers to. > > If the bidding goes 1S 2H X 3C and then it is explained that > double is alertable the 3C bid can be taken back. > > If the bidding goes 1S 2H X 3C P and then it is explained that > double is alertable the 3C bid can be taken back. > > If the bidding goes 1S 2H X P P P and then it is explained that > double is alertable the final pass can be taken back. > > Where is the inconsistency? Why is one a "special case"? > > What has L17E to do with it? The lead has not been faced - or if it > has, then the call may not be changed. > > I am sorry, I really do not see your difficulty. > The difference is that the change of call introduces the wrong explainer back into the bidding, after he has received from his partner UI. Which he cannot use, OK, but isn't L73C worth nothing ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 04:00:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 04:00:22 +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 EAA05519 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 04:00:13 +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 11v1UV-0006kj-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 16:59:59 +0000 Message-ID: <1rg9dpBwr6S4EwN0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:24:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: different explanation of bids References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> <003a01bf3fc8$3f5afd40$3a5608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003a01bf3fc8$3f5afd40$3a5608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: > >Grattan Endicott >Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk >Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk >Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! >================================================ >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 1:37 AM >Subject: Re: different explanation of bids > > >> Edouard Beauvillain wrote: >> >Hi everybody ! >> > >> >I have been watching (or is it listening to ?) for a while and this is my >> >first try, hope it is not the last one :-) >> >> Bienvenu! >> >> >Sorry David i have no cats... >> >> Pity - but we forgive you! >> >+=+ I understand royalty prefers 'We'. As for cats, >the delightfully aristocratic name might suggest Afghan >hounds (or corgis) but never mind, David, maybe he >has a railway? Plurality also prefers 'We'. David + Quango + Nanki Poo is plural. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 7 04:22:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 04:22:42 +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 EAA05625 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 04:22:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11685 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:22:25 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199912061722.MAA11685@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:22:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Dec 6, 99 01:22:02 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: > > Some time ago, on BLML, I was trying to get people to read the Law > book. > > Now I feel like Pandora. Everyone is reading the damn thing, and > coming up with the most horrible conclusions. > > I think that where an interpretation of the Law might be considered > "obvious" we should go with it, even if the actual wording of the Law > does not necessarily support it. We are, after all, trying to run a > game, not make money for lawyers. Which brings us back to the need for clarity in the writing of rules. Preferably augmented by good examples. My experience in the board games world has convinced me that the slightest ambiguity will be taken in a way very much not intended by the authors by a large number of people. Generally, I hasten to add, with the best of intentions. If there is a section that is consistently taken in a way that the rules makers did not intend, then the section needs to be re-written - and some carefully chosen examples are needed. And for best results you want the new wording gone over by those who were honestly arguing for an interpretation that was not intended -- to see if the new wording convices them. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 04:52:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 04:00:33 +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 EAA05526 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 04:00:24 +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 11v1UY-0006lM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 17:00:03 +0000 Message-ID: <3rG99kBoq6S4EwsY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:23:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: different explanation of bids References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <095601bf3fc3$ea2c2f00$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <095601bf3fc3$ea2c2f00$6a30d2cc@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: David Stevenson < > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >If the splinter was truly a partnership agreement, declarer must call >> >the TD before the opening lead to report the failure to Alert, and, >when >> >asked to do so, explain to your partner that 5C was a splinter bid. >The >> >failure to Alert was MI, which must be corrected at the first legal >> >opportunity (L75D2). >> >> Screens, Marv. >> >L75D2 doesn't exempt those playing with screens, does it?. When 5C was >passed out, declarer knew the opponent on the other side had not been >told what 5C meant. Doesn't he have to tell her? How does he know she hasn't been told? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 7 05:06:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:26:47 +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 CAA05242 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:26:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-140.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.140]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA06740 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 16:26:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384BA6AD.74F30EE6@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 13:06:05 +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: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Bruce J. Moore wrote: > > > > There are several places where the ACBL mandates the Work point count. > > Referencing the GCC: > > > > - 1C or 1D conventional must contain at least 10 HCP. [snip other examples] > > > > Perhaps the GCC really means "x HCP or equivalent strength". After > the > > Meckstroth article in the Bulletin several years ago damning opening a > > 10-12 1NT on an excellent 9 count, I believe they really mean "x HCP". > > I'd be delighted if someone shows me that I'm wrong here. :-). > > > Please explain "damning," not understood. Meckstroth does not determine > ACBL policy, by the way. > > I'll repeat what I found in the ACBL's *Duplicate Decisions* page 34. It > says there, quoting a *Bulletin* article (Feb 1978) by Don Oakie, that > deviations as much as a queen (!) from "agreed or announced strengths" > are permissible, provided they are not frequent. That would seem to > permit judgment when evaluating the strength of a hand, as when players > recognize that honors in combination are worth more than isolated > honors, 10s and 9s are worth something, the 4-3-2-1 count undervalues > aces and kings in relation to queens and jacks, and it is better to have > high cards in long suits than in short suits. > > For instance, I play a 16-18 HCP 1NT opening, with a jump rebid of 2NT > showing 19-20 HCP, but would open 1NT with S- KJ10 H-AQ9 D-AJ98 C-987, > (15 HCP), and just 1C with S-K432 H-AQ D-J543 C-AQ4 (16 HCP, but not > good enough for 1NT). > > At the other end, I would open 1NT with S-KQ2 H-KQJ D-AK2 C-J432 (19 > HCP, but not good enough for a jump rebid of 2NT), but 1C with S-AK98 > H-AQ9 D-1032 C-AJ9 (18 HCP, but too good for 1NT). > > Such deviations from the stated HCP range are permitted by *Duplicate > Decisions*, although Don Oakie did not have hand evaluation in mind when > he wrote that opinion. He regarded such variations as part of the game, > labeling them "bridge tactics." Oakie was a pro, and pros like to open > 1NT a point or two light when playing with a client. They do it all the > time, and it is very noticeable that the ACBL is reluctant to enforce > any regulation that the pros dislike. > > Hence, IMO those HCP requirements mean "x HCP, with occasional minor > deviations permitted." > > Marv (Marvin L. French) No they don't Marv. Or they should not. When speaking of correct information, I would be happy to understand that 15-17 inlcudes some 14 and/or 18 counts. I would also be happy to have my opponents explain, we don't use Goren, and this opening promises 25.5 - 27.5 Herman Complex Points, which I will explain if you want, but suffice it to say that this is approximately 15-17. That's all OK. But when a regulation stipulates that a system that allows an opening of 9HCP is illegal, then any opeing below 10HCP is illegal. That's the only way a system policy can be policed ! After all, it is not terribly difficult to also count your HCP in cases of doubt, is it ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 05:51:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:51:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA05911 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:51:48 +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, 6 Dec 1999 10:51:30 -0800 Message-ID: <09ad01bf401a$bc2175a0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001301bf4009$58f81580$01aa93c3@pacific> Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:45:41 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Ed Reppert > > > > > > >Of course, one could require pairs to have a list of agreements they don't > >have. :-) > > > +=+ Pairs that do not list (special) agreements > surely do not have them.. ? :-( ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I guess this is tongue-in-cheek. Special partnership agreements can be made orally, or notes concerning them could be left at home. In either case, an AC will probably rule that they do not have them. My partnership agreement concerning penalty doubles of overcalls is that opener must pull a double if the opening was based more on distribution than HCP and s/he is short in the doubled suit. Having opened a 4=2=1=6 hand with 10 HCP, after 1C-3D-Dbl-P I pulled partner's double to 3S and ended in 4S making five. Despite a long hesitation by partner before doubling, passing was forbidden by system, so it was not an LA for me. Unfortunately my system notes were back in San Diego (this was St Louis NABC Appeal 2) and the AC, all of whom play negative doubles, did not believe me. They adjusted the score back to 3D doubled, making four. In effect, they were barring me from playing my system. What's more, AC chairman Jon Brissman, after reading my criticisms of this decision on the internet, wrote in the casebook "I think we were overly generous in returning the deposit." (How come AC members get to rate their own cases in the casebooks? Do they ever give themselves a bad rating?) Therefore, Grattan is right. If an unfamiliar special agreement is not listed, or the list is not at hand, the partnership does not have that agreement in the eyes of a TD/AC. After St Louis, my 500 pages of system notes are packed for every bridge trip, along with the Laws and current ACBL regulations. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 06:33:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 06:33:43 +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 GAA06077 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 06:33:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27764 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:33:27 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <384BA6AD.74F30EE6@village.uunet.be> References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:32:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:06 PM +0100 12/6/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >When speaking of correct information, I would be happy to >understand that 15-17 inlcudes some 14 and/or 18 counts. I >would also be happy to have my opponents explain, we don't >use Goren, and this opening promises 25.5 - 27.5 Herman >Complex Points, which I will explain if you want, but >suffice it to say that this is approximately 15-17. > >That's all OK. >But when a regulation stipulates that a system that allows >an opening of 9HCP is illegal, then any opeing below 10HCP >is illegal. >That's the only way a system policy can be policed ! The rule says "agreement"; in any other case of an agreement, it is standard to violate the letter of the agreement with a hand whose value is not perfectly measured. And the ACBL uses the same rule in many other cases but does not enforce it in the same way. If your weak 2-bid agreement is a range wider than 7 HCP, you may not use conventions. If your agreement is 5-11 HCP, you will probably open 2S on KJT9xx x T9x T9x. The wording of the rule is identical, but you can bid 2S on that hand without violating it. The correct standard should be that a 9-count for a 10-12 1NT opening is not inherently a violation, but it must be a hand for which there is a legitimate bridge reason for the bid. The same applies to the 2S bid above (on a version of the Marty Bergen hand); this hand clearly has the values, but Qxxxxx x Qxx xxx does not. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 06:53:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 06:53:15 +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 GAA06201 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 06:53:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12893 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:52:53 +0100 Received: from ip101.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.101), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb12888; Mon Dec 6 20:52:47 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Reopening the auction after the final pass Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 20:52:47 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <4u4o4sc40dtq8pkuifkav5aoi08i80upei@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <199912052205.XAA12132@isa.dknet.dk> <384BAF7B.D72D8FC1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <384BAF7B.D72D8FC1@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 GAA06203 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 13:43:40 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jens & Bodil wrote: >> >> At this stage in the discussion, the Danish LC feels that it owes it >> to its TDs to remove the doubt raised about this interpretation of >> L21B (with L17E). We will eventually put this to a vote if we >> cannot agree. I am hoping that BLML could help us make an easy, >> unanimous decision. >> > >I believe there is no use in changing the present >interpretations of the Laws. The methods you descrive are >correct. I agree. The law text seems perfectly clear and unambiguous to me. >I agree however that the Laws are inconsistent in this >respect and would favour the retraction of this >possibility. To make the laws consistent in this respect would require the time limit for a L21B correction to expire when the last call is made, rather than when the auction period ends. This would also make the (theoretical) case where all four players pass consistent with the more normal case: under the current L21B/L17E, if one of the four passes was incorrectly explained, the last pass cannot be changed, since the auction period is over. However, I would consider such a change bad for the game. I find the current L21B/L17E very useful from a practical point of view, and perfectly clear and easy to apply. Only rarely will the change of the last pass lead to a long continuation of the auction where the UI is a problem. Notice that the benefit from allowing the change is there also when the player chooses _not_ to change the pass: in ninety-some percent of these cases, the last pass is not changed, and we have the very practical advantage that the player cannot afterwards claim that he would have changed it. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 06:53:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 06:53:14 +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 GAA06200 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 06:53:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12892 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:52:53 +0100 Received: from ip101.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.101), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda12888; Mon Dec 6 20:52:46 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 20:52:46 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <073o4skh36mnka4tid7hjrfhrqnk6edep3@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <99Nov30.234745cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> <6tal4s8vph3gfikr2k33tf2pnqvc39odop@bilbo.dit.dk> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 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 GAA06202 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 01:22:02 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:45:08 +0100, "Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen" >> wrote: >> >>>7. Spade 10 - (fumble) Spade 5 - Spade 7 - Spade J >> >>An interesting point in L73F2 is that it requires the TD to >>determine whether an innocent player "has drawn a false inference >>...". >> >>There is no mention of any objective standard: it seems to me >>that the TD is not asked to determine whether it was reasonable >>to draw this false inference, only whether the player actually >>did so. [snip] > Do you really believe, Jesper, that we should actually interpret this >Law in this way? No, not really, and definitely not in clear-cut cases where it is obvious that the inference is not supported by the opponent's action. Fortunately, I realize that I overlooked the possibilities of the beginning of L73F when I posted yesterday. It does actually offer no less than two possibilities for a reasonable interpretation: We might use the words "results in damage" to say that a player who draws an inference that is not only wrong but also stupid has damaged himself rather than been damaged. I don't like that very much, because in general I would like "damaged by the action X" to mean simply "getting a worse score than would have been the case without X". I think I would prefer to say that a player is not "innocent" if a little thought would have made him realize that there was no real information in the fumble. In those cases where the opponent has paused for thought before following with one of three small cards, I do not think there is any great practical problem. In those cases, it is usually fairly easy to determine that there was no "demonstrable bridge reason". And if there was no such reason, I don't really mind if once in a while we happen to adjust even though the opponent had not deserved the resulting good score - after all, it should not be difficult to avoid that pause. But fumbles seem different to me. I have much more sympathy for a player who accidentally fumbles than for one who takes several seconds to determine whether or not to signal length from 853. Most of us fumble once in a while. Often it is obvious to everybody that it was not a pause for thought, but sometimes (as in the original case here) the fumble appears differently to other players. And the law book is not very helpful when it comes to determining exactly how obvious it needs to be that a fumble was mechanical before we deny score adjustment. I would like it to be clearly allowed to tell the opponents that it was a mechanical fumble, regardless of the hand held. About that, Grattan wrote: On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:49:54 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ You may care to consider the implications of the >statements on page 57 of the 1992 EBL Commentary >on the Laws. The position is not the same but the same >principle is present. > A.8.6 > 7.5.2. K.9.4.3. > Q.J.10 >"In No Trumps declarer leads the Spade J; West hesitates, >apologizes and plays 2. East realizes West cannot have >Spade Q since no apology would be due in that event ...." >It goes on to say that the info East has is UI. ~ G ~ +=+ And to make it even more clear, the Commentary also says: "The player should also recognize that to hesitate and then apologize when he does hold a key card may also prove misleading to the opponent." Of course I agree that a player who has actually spent time thinking about what card to play from Q52 must not apologize for his pause. But in the case of a mechanical fumble with Q52, I would like it to be acceptable to apologize. That will of course require mechanical fumbles in general to be apologized with neutral words: "Sorry, that was just a mechanical fumble" rather than "Sorry, I had no problem". But of course even that will actually mislead opponents once in a while, so it is not a perfect solution. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 07:00:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 07:00:00 +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 GAA06250 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 06:59:52 +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 11v4IP-0004Fx-00; Mon, 06 Dec 1999 20:59:41 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA141010380; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:59:41 +0100 Subject: Re: another hesitation case To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:59:40 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "Martaandras@uze.net" at Dec 05, 1999 08:05:07 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 Martaandras@uze.net: > >Dear All I would really appreciate your comments about the following >case happened in the 1-st league of the Hungarian >Team Championship. > > AK10 > AQ74 > 857 > K86 > > - J97542 >K832 - >AKQ94 J3 >QJ52 A10973 > > Q863 > J10965 > 1076 > 4 >Bidding >W N E S >1D Dbl 1Sp 4H >Dbl P 4Sp Dbl >P* P 5Cl P >P Dbl all Pass > >* after agreed hesitation >Would you accept the 5Cl bid? No. Certainly pass is a logical alternative. West might, for example, be 1-4-6-2, or even 1-5-6-1. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 07:22:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 07:22:14 +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 HAA06297 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 07:22:07 +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, 6 Dec 1999 12:21:54 -0800 Message-ID: <09b701bf4027$592a2660$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <384BA6AD.74F30EE6@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:19:12 -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: > > > > Hence, IMO those HCP requirements mean "x HCP, > >with occasional minor deviations permitted." > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > No they don't Marv. Or they should not. > > When speaking of correct information, I would be happy to > understand that 15-17 inlcudes some 14 and/or 18 counts. I > would also be happy to have my opponents explain, we don't > use Goren, and this opening promises 25.5 - 27.5 Herman > Complex Points, which I will explain if you want, but > suffice it to say that this is approximately 15-17. > > That's all OK. > > > But when a regulation stipulates that a system that allows > an opening of 9HCP is illegal, then any opening below 10HCP > is illegal. It is interesting that the ACBL nowhere (AFAIK) defines the point count system being used to formulate their regulations. "10 HCP" might well be Herman Complex Points, who knows? > > That's the only way a system policy can be policed ! Some of us prefer the way the Laws refer to hand strengths. L40D: "Zonal authorities may...regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permits the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength." Using HCP for policing ease is okay, provided it is specified that any such point count is only a guide, not to be taken literally with no deviation. Opening one of a suit with 7 HCP is illegal according to Meckstroth, so you can't agree to open 1S with seven spades AK and no outside jack, but an outside jack makes it okay? That's pretty ridiculous. Maybe the HCP policies concerned with non-conventional calls, other than the possibility mentioned by L40D, should be judged illegal. Using conventions to control the legality of non-conventional calls seems to violate L40D, which states the *only* sort of regulation that can apply to a call that is not a convention. Saying that no convention may be used in connection with some non-conventional understanding surely constitutes a regulation of that understanding. > After all, it is not terribly difficult to also count your > HCP in cases of doubt, is it ? No, but I shouldn't have to bother. The ACBL Convention Charts, which are maintained by the BoD and are the only authoritative basis for the regulations we are discussing (Meckstroth is interpreting, not determining, BoD policy), use such words as "indicating," "promising," or "showing" some minimum HCP strength. These words do not convey the same rigid requirement that "having" would convey. As long as a partner will assume you have a minimum of 10 HCP, then an *occasional* minor deviation, whether as a bridge tactic (to use the phrase employed by *Duplicate Decisions*) or a judgment of strength based on something more sophisticated than 4-3-2-1, should be acceptable. Another point. Psychs of all non-conventional calls are legal. Pros often get away with out-of-legal-range weak two bids when playing with clients by telling the TD, "It was just a psych." Meckstroth does not have the authority to ban psychs. I have asked Gary Blaiss, Chief Tournament Director (I think his title is) of the ACBL, to comment on all this. I'll relay his answer to BLML when I get it. He is a very busy guy, so it may take a while. Marv (Marvin L. French) Apologies for the length, it's a difficult subject From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 08:07:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 08:07:41 +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 IAA06415 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 08:07:34 +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 MAA13421 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:08:02 -0900 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:07:52 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: The use and abuse of penalty cards Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk South deals and the auction goes 2NT-P-3NT-P-P-P. East's HK hits the table a couple seconds before West's CT (0 or 2 higher) does. Oops. I explain declarer's options to him, which is a rather involved process once you include explaining what will happen to each of the two potential penalty cards depending what he chooses. Our hero chooses to accept the lead and remain declarer. JTx xxx QJTxx xx Kxxxx xxx x KQTxx xxx x KJT9 Axxx AQ AJ98 AKxx Qxx He goes up with the HA, takes the SA, and exits the SQ. West wins, leads the forced CT, and declarer is down two before you can say Steve Robinson. The field, of course, is taking 8 tricks. South calls the cops: "the fact that the CT shows 0 or 2 higher is UI to East. Surely he had logical alternatives. Make him continue hearts instead, or duck the club playing partner for KT9x, and I will make my contract." Do you buy this argument and adjust the score to +600/-600? Do you buy half the argument, disallowing the club return at trick 5, but letting East exit with a spade or a diamond, and leading clubs when he is in later with a heart for down 1? Does it matter whether the CT would promise 0 or two higher at trick 4 in normal play? I think not. Now for the ugly wrinkle. South seems to be fairly clever at using whichever of Law 16 or 50 he needs to in order to skewer his opponents on the actual line of play he took. If he is so clever, why did make such a silly play at trick one? Duck the HK, forbid a club switch, and win one spade, five daimonds, and three hearts via the marked finesse of the QT. (Before 1997, this is the only way to make the hand.) "Doesn't matter," some of you will cry, "we don't require players to be super-skilled at miling Law 50 for all it is worth, so he is still entitled to an adjustment." Suppose he even stated his intntion to forbid a club lead had East been the one with the SK. It sure looks to me like South blew it on the first trick and is trying to argue his way out of a bottom now. I want to adjust to -200/-600, letting South get what he deserves and making East suffer for using UI. If I were in a charitable mood to East-West I would go for -200/+100. Comments? Also -- what is the best way for me to explain to South what will happen if he refuses to accept the HK and does not demand a heart from West? I can't just say "If you do this, West will lead the CT and the HK is a MPC." The CT is still technically a penalty card that West was forced to play at his first legal opportunity, so the UI problem in regard to the CKJ is still there whichever of the five options South chooses -- and always difficult to put into words. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 09:58:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:58:41 +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 JAA07153 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:58:31 +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 RAA22289 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 17:58:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA23120 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 17:58:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 17:58:38 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912062258.RAA23120@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > An interesting point in L73F2 is that it requires the TD to > determine whether an innocent player "has drawn a false inference > ...". On its face, this calls for mind reading. There is no reason to reiterate my opinion of that! > There is no mention of any objective standard: it seems to me > that the TD is not asked to determine whether it was reasonable > to draw this false inference, only whether the player actually > did so. It seems to me that most problems can be solved by the usual rules of evidence and in particular discounting self-serving testimony. (Remember, 'discount' is not a synonym for 'ignore'.) If declarer claims to have been misled, you can determine whether or not it is reasonable, taking into account the nature of the mannerism and the skill of the declarer. > If I had been declarer, and if S's action had actually appeared > that way to me, I would never draw a false inference, because it > would seem to me that S was not thinking about anything other > than why it was the S5 he was holding in his hand. When S had intended to cover the ten with the jack? I don't think being misled is so unreasonable, even on this version of events. But of course one has to be on the scene and gather the evidence, and I would not presume to dispute the conclusion. > I think L73F2 ought to make it a requirement for adjustment that > the TD judges not only that the player actually drew a false > inference, but also that the fumble was one that could reasonably > induce that false inference. Otherwise we cannot refuse to > adjust except by calling the player a liar. Well, you do have to explain with care. Perhaps "The rules require me to determine whether you drew a false inference, but of course I cannot read your mind. The interpretation our organization uses is to examine whether the false inference was a reasonable one, given the situation. While I'm sure you were in fact misled, as you say, it seems to me that a player of your skill should not have been, and accordingly the part of L73D1 'at his own risk' applies." Perhaps others can do better. The idea is akin to explaining in an L16 case, "While I'm sure you always were going to bid X, as you say, the rules require...." > Does "demonstrable" mean that the reason must be > one that the other players could expect you to have holding your > actual cards? I think this is an excellent interpretation. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 10:02:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:02:51 +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 KAA07216 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:02:42 +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, 6 Dec 1999 15:02:33 -0800 Message-ID: <09c401bf403d$c5f650a0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr><07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com><095601bf3fc3$ea2c2f00$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3rG99kBoq6S4EwsY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:53:37 -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 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: David Stevenson < > > > >> Marvin L. French wrote: > >> > >> >If the splinter was truly a partnership agreement, declarer must call > >> >the TD before the opening lead to report the failure to Alert, and, > >when > >> >asked to do so, explain to your partner that 5C was a splinter bid. > >The > >> >failure to Alert was MI, which must be corrected at the first legal > >> >opportunity (L75D2). > >> > >> Screens, Marv. > >> > >L75D2 doesn't exempt those playing with screens, does it?. When 5C was > >passed out, declarer knew the opponent on the other side had not been > >told what 5C meant. Doesn't he have to tell her? > > How does he know she hasn't been told? > Okay, but let's address the main point. The auction is over, so what harm can befall the opponents if he is wrong and the TD rules no MI (e.g., the splinter was forgotten, but remembered when the opponent asked about 5C). Or, if he is right, maybe the opponent wants to change her last pass to double (don't ask me why) when informed of the splinter bid. Isn't that her right? I guess I don't understand screen procedures if this is wrong. Shouldn't it be routine that a declarer, auction over, perhaps after seeing dummy, make sure that both opponents know everything they ought to know, and call the TD if there is a likelihood that one of them has been misinformed? Does calling the TD to report possible MI somehow jeopardize the rights of the opponents? And if it does, won't the TD protect them? Can someone point me to a place where screen procedures are explained in detail? Evidently I need some education. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 10:11:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:11:35 +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 KAA07237 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:11:24 +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 SAA22562 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:11:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA23155 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:11:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:11:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912062311.SAA23155@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: another hesitation case X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Martaandras@uze.net > W N E S > 1D Dbl 1Sp 4H > Dbl P 4Sp Dbl > P* P 5Cl P > P Dbl all Pass > > * after agreed hesitation > Would you accept the 5Cl bid? Did South wait the full 10 seconds after the 4S bid? (Or is that not required in Hungary?) If a wait was required but not given, I would be very reluctant to adjust against EW. In any case, I'd like to know the length of the hesitation. A second or so seems normal tempo in this auction, but 10 s is not. We also need to know the interpretation of LA in Hungary. Is it obvious that West's hesitation wasn't thinking about a business redouble? Even with answers to all of the above, this seems to me a difficult case unless the definition of LA is a strict one (a la ACBL). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 10:37:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:37:23 +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 KAA07329 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:37:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va525195 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:36:34 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-143.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.143]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Vintage-MailRouter V2.6h 17/111798); 07 Dec 1999 09:36:33 Message-ID: <000301bf4042$8eb7e9a0$8f5e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: another hesitation case Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:32:29 +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 Andras Booc wrote: >I would really appreciate your comments about the following >case happened in the 1-st league of the Hungarian >Team Championship. > > AK10 > AQ74 > 857 > K86 > > - J97542 >K832 - >AKQ94 J3 >QJ52 A10973 > > Q863 > J10965 > 1076 > 4 >Bidding >W N E S >1D Dbl 1Sp 4H >Dbl P 4Sp Dbl >P* P 5Cl P >P Dbl all Pass > >* after agreed hesitation >Would you accept the 5Cl bid? > I wouldn't accept 5C. IMO, pass is a Logical Alternative, and the slow pass clearly suggests the removal from 4SX. Analysis of the number of tricks in 4SX is not so easy. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 12:21:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:21:17 +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 MAA07983 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:21:09 +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 11v9JG-000Hj2-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 01:20:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 01:19:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Tough Call MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've posted the facing hand to this as a problem on rgb. This is the problem I was faced with: Teams; Game All; 9 Board Swiss 1D on your left, P, P to you. You hold xxx AKQJTxx xx x. Being fairly sure that partner will know what it means you call 3D (Occasional pard, who mostly plays afternoon bridge, but is sometimes a bit naive. (It's probably a slight overbid, and I accept that). Pass on your left. 3N from pard (Hooray). Pass, Pass. Questions from your left. Partner correctly says "No agreement". Double. It is obvious to you that opener clearly knows you have this sort of hand. Pass pass to you? 1D P P 3D P 3N P P X P P ? Now try it when partner makes up some HdW type story about "pard obviously has diamonds". It cost us the overall win btw. 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 Dec 7 12:46:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:46:57 +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 MAA08034 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:46:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg8b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.65.11]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA09206 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:46:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991206171257.0074de14@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 17:12:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: different explanation of bids In-Reply-To: <095601bf3fc3$ea2c2f00$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:21 AM 12/6/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: >L75D2 doesn't exempt those playing with screens, does it?. When 5C was >passed out, declarer knew the opponent on the other side had not been >told what 5C meant. Doesn't he have to tell her? But he doesn't "know" anything of the sort. He can only guess, based on the circumstantial evidence of partner's pass, which could have other explanations. I guess I'm not too sure what the issue is, anyway. If the defense fails to take full advantage of their windfall owing to MI to one of them, then the score will be adjusted. WTP? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 12:55:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:55:59 +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 MAA08067 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:55:49 +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 11v9qp-0003do-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 01:55:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 01:36:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: another hesitation case References: <199912062311.SAA23155@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199912062311.SAA23155@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: Martaandras@uze.net >> W N E S >> 1D Dbl 1Sp 4H >> Dbl P 4Sp Dbl >> P* P 5Cl P >> P Dbl all Pass >> >> * after agreed hesitation >> Would you accept the 5Cl bid? > >Did South wait the full 10 seconds after the 4S bid? (Or is that not >required in Hungary?) If a wait was required but not given, I would be >very reluctant to adjust against EW. South is not required to wait 10 seconds in the ACBL, so I doubt he is in Hungary. Or to put it another way, Steve, 4S was not a Skip Bid. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 12:56:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:56:02 +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 MAA08069 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:55:54 +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 11v9qp-0003tz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 01:55:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 01:27:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? References: <199912061722.MAA11685@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <199912061722.MAA11685@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: >> >> Some time ago, on BLML, I was trying to get people to read the Law >> book. >> >> Now I feel like Pandora. Everyone is reading the damn thing, and >> coming up with the most horrible conclusions. >> >> I think that where an interpretation of the Law might be considered >> "obvious" we should go with it, even if the actual wording of the Law >> does not necessarily support it. We are, after all, trying to run a >> game, not make money for lawyers. > >Which brings us back to the need for clarity in the writing >of rules. Preferably augmented by good examples. > >My experience in the board games world has convinced me that >the slightest ambiguity will be taken in a way very much >not intended by the authors by a large number of people. > >Generally, I hasten to add, with the best of intentions. > >If there is a section that is consistently taken in a way that >the rules makers did not intend, then the section needs to >be re-written - and some carefully chosen examples are needed. > >And for best results you want the new wording gone over by >those who were honestly arguing for an interpretation that >was not intended -- to see if the new wording convices them. Please do not misunderstand - I totally agree with this. I want the Rules to be written correctly, and I am only sorry that so far I am less involved in this than I might be, despite my offers. But, until such time as we have re-written Laws and Regulations, we have to go with what we have. In some cases there are reasonable interpretations, and I merely suggest we accept 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 Tue Dec 7 13:00:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:00:24 +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 NAA08095 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:00:16 +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 11v9vA-000OQ0-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:00:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 01:59:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Law 81C11 - Please forward MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Happy Birthday to You Happy Birthday to You Happy Birthday dear David Happy Birthday to You -- John (MadDog) Probst| David Stevenson's |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | Birthday |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | is on the 7th |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | December |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 13:07:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:07:20 +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 NAA08123 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:07:11 +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, 6 Dec 1999 18:06:56 -0800 Message-ID: <09e301bf4057$84697760$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912062311.SAA23155@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: another hesitation case Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:05:17 -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: Martaandras@uze.net > > W N E S > > 1D Dbl 1Sp 4H > > Dbl P 4Sp Dbl > > P* P 5Cl P > > P Dbl all Pass > > > > * after agreed hesitation > > Would you accept the 5Cl bid? > > Did South wait the full 10 seconds after the 4S bid? (Or is that not > required in Hungary?) If a wait was required but not given, I would be > very reluctant to adjust against EW. > > In any case, I'd like to know the length of the hesitation. A second > or so seems normal tempo in this auction, but 10 s is not. We also > need to know the interpretation of LA in Hungary. The break in tempo was agreed by E-W. Why not accept their opinion? > Is it obvious that West's hesitation wasn't thinking about a business > redouble? No, it is not obvious, merely likely. It *is* obvious that the hesitation makes a 5C bid more likely to succeed than a pass, since it is rare that such hesitations are based on the consideration of a redouble. This word "suggest" is causing lots of trouble, and maybe the lawmakers should change it next time. The break in tempo does not convey an explicit message that West does not like the double (as some people interpret the word "suggest"), true, but it does give East some reason to think (perhaps erroneously) that West does not want to play in 4S doubled. Actually "suggest" is the right word, according to my dictionary, which I'll quote. 1. To arouse, often by indirect means, the thought of, the desire for, the temptation to commit, and the like. 2. Of things, to call to mind, as by association of ideas. 3. To serve as a motive or inspiration for. The thought of bidding 5C bid was (quite possibly) indirectly aroused by the break in tempo (serving as a motive or inspiration for the bid). "Suggest" does not mean the conveyance of a specific message, although it is often used that way: "I suggest you drop that gun." This usage is not supported by my dictionary. > Even with answers to all of the above, this seems to me a difficult > case unless the definition of LA is a strict one (a la ACBL). That sounds like a switch in argument. First you say the the break in tempo did not demonstrably "suggest" the 5C bid, and now you are saying that passing 4S doubled may not have been an LA? I disagree with both those ideas. This is an easy case. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 13:22:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:22:31 +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 NAA08178 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:22:24 +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, 6 Dec 1999 18:22:14 -0800 Message-ID: <09e901bf4059$a7909280$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <000301bf4042$8eb7e9a0$8f5e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: another hesitation case Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:20:35 -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: > Andras Booc wrote: > >I would really appreciate your comments about the following > >case happened in the 1-st league of the Hungarian > >Team Championship. > > > > AK10 > > AQ74 > > 857 > > K86 > > > > - J97542 > >K832 - > >AKQ94 J3 > >QJ52 A10973 > > > > Q863 > > J10965 > > 1076 > > 4 > >Bidding > >W N E S > >1D Dbl 1Sp 4H > >Dbl P 4Sp Dbl > >P* P 5Cl P > >P Dbl all Pass > > > >* after agreed hesitation > >Would you accept the 5Cl bid? > > > > I wouldn't accept 5C. IMO, pass is a Logical Alternative, > and the slow pass clearly suggests the removal from 4SX. > Analysis of the number of tricks in 4SX is not so easy. > You have to assume the best defense that was likely (for N-S) or at all probable (for E-W), sometimes not an easy task. A quickie look: Start with a heart, of course. East will no doubt then lead a diamond to the queen, ruff a heart, then diamond to the king and ace, then queen of clubs. If North ducks, another heart ruff, and that is down 3. If North covers, same result, as East gets a spade trick eventually. I vote for down 3 as an assigned score for both sides, but am willing to listen to contrary arguments. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 14:31:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:31:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08309 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:31:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-246.s500.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.212.246] helo=hdavis) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 11vBKk-0001IF-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:30:35 -0500 Message-ID: <001901bf4063$5cd0f000$f6d43ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: Is it an LA to assume partner made a mistake? Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:30:01 -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: "David J. Grabiner" To: Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 9:45 AM Subject: Is it an LA to assume partner made a mistake? > > This is a moot case, as the auction at the table was slightly different, > but it > led to some later discussion. The general question is whether it is an LA > to assume that partner has violated bidding theory, and whether this > depends on partner's ability. > > South dealer, E-W vulnerable, matchpoints. > > S W N E > P P 1NT 2D! > 2NT! 3H 4C P > > South's hand: xxx x Axxxxx Qxx. > > North's 1NT is 12-14 HCP, 2D shows both majors, and 2NT is Lebensohl. N-S > have an agreement that they do not show stoppers on Lebensohl sequences > when the opponents have two known suits. Thus North can probably infer > that South has a minor suit, particularly given that South is a passed hand > and that E-W are showing strength. > > However, North explained 2NT as, "asks me to bid clubs." South's LA's > depend on what he would expect North to have for the bid without any UI. > The UI may suggest that North has four or five clubs and says nothing about > his diamonds, or it may suggest that North understands the bid but doesn't > understand the intricacies of proper explanation. > 2N is Lebensohl, which is artificial and requests N to relay to 3C in the absence of competition, after which the 2N bidder will further describe his hand. The phrase "asks me to bid clubs" is a partial explanation, and omits the nuances of this particular pair's agreements. However, it is a correct explanation, even if incomplete. I cannot discern how you can say that S has UI that suggests N has 4 or 5 clubs from this explanation. Consequently, I can't even begin to address the rest of the post. S should be concerned that the full nuances of the agreement were not explained, and should summon the TD at the proper time to report the incomplete explanation. However, an incomplete explanation is not necessarily a wrong explanation. There is nothing above to indicate that N has forgotten the N/S agreements, only sloppy language by N. There's certainly nothing to suggest to S that N has clubs. On the information given, it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about LA's for S. S is free to bid anything he wants. Am I missing something? Hirsch > E-W argue that South should expect North to have six clubs and two > diamonds, and thus passing 4C is a LA. South argues that North would not > compete to the 4-level without the expectation of an excellent fit; with > six clubs (and not good ones since she didn't open 1C) and two diamonds, > expecting to find six diamonds opposite, North should pass. However, with > four cards in both minors, North could bid 4C knowing that there was a > ten-card fit in whichever minor South held. > > If you don't accept the bidding theory argument, or believe that E-W are > being bridge lawyers and should not be rewarded for it, the case becomes > easy, so for purposes of the following discussion, assume that the UI is > material and that South's argument is valid. (Modify the South hand as you > believe is necessary to make the argument valid so that pass is a LA if > North has made a bad bid but not if North kknows what she is doing.) > > How do you rule if North actually doesn't know that much about bidding > theory, and is capable of unilaterally competing to the 4-level without > support? Is it an LA to assume that North could hold a hand which she > shouldn't have bid but might have bid anyway? (This is a sectional > tournament at clubs, and North is a regular at the club, so the director > and committee would know her bidding style.) > > How about if North does understand bidding theory? > > How about if North does understand th > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 14:44:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:44:09 +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 OAA08335 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:44:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (3com-81.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.81]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Sandhills) with ESMTP id WAA06360 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:43:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <384C832D.EA1B7E75@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:46:53 -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: Round Robin Swiss Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At my game this afternoon, I was running a seven table round robin swiss with 6 rounds and the movement being 1st round up three, 2nd round boards to home table and down three, Compare. 3rd round up 2 then boards to home table and down 2 for Rd. 4. Compare. 5th round up 1 then boards to home table and 6th round down 1 and Compare. During round three after 3 boards had been played, it was discovered that 2 EW pairs had gone to the wrong tables. Being somewhat inexperienced in Swiss Teams, I could not figure out how to save this movement at the end of the round. I finally had everyone return to their home tables and we replayed rounds 3 and 4, which was OK except the game ran longer that we had anticipated. Was there anything I could have done in round 4 to make it all work????? Did I find a satisfactory solution??? Thanks, Nancy (these sure are great learning experiences!!! ) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 14:44:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:44:34 +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 OAA08342 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:44:20 +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 11vBXv-000CAH-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 03:44:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:43:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Law 81C11 - Please forward 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: > > Happy Birthday to You > Happy Birthday to You > Happy Birthday dear David > Happy Birthday to You > awwww, fanks!!!! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 7 18:26:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA09048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:26:19 +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 SAA09043 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:26:12 +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 <19991207072602.TYIT27614.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 23:26:02 -0800 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: different explanation of bids Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 23:22:45 -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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <09ad01bf401a$bc2175a0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > (How come AC members get to rate their own cases in the casebooks? Do > they ever give themselves a bad rating?) Yes Linda From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 18:44:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA09102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:44:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA09097 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:44:12 +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, 6 Dec 1999 23:44:02 -0800 Message-ID: <0a0b01bf4086$91656580$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr><07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19991206171257.0074de14@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 23:37:57 -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 Mike Dennis wrote: > Marvin wrote: > >L75D2 doesn't exempt those playing with screens, does it?. When 5C was > >passed out, declarer knew the opponent on the other side had not been > >told what 5C meant. Doesn't he have to tell her? > > But he doesn't "know" anything of the sort. He can only guess, based on the > circumstantial evidence of partner's pass, which could have other > explanations. The pass can have no other explanation, but perhaps the splinter bid was explained correctly after the pass (temporary memory lapse). I don't see that it matters. > > I guess I'm not too sure what the issue is, anyway. If the defense fails to > take full advantage of their windfall owing to MI to one of them, then the > score will be adjusted. WTP? The problems is that MI is supposed to be corrected at the first legal opportunity to do so, and (this is a theoretical discussion) the last passer in a completed auction has the right to retract the pass if it was based on MI. L75D2 Error noticed by Explainer's Partner (I assume this law applies to the failure to explain a bid, which constitutes MI) ...After calling the Director at the first legal opportunity, ...the player must inform the opponents... When the splinter is passed, and next hand passes, end of auction, it seems likely that the opponent was not informed of the splinter bid. This probable error has been noticed, so the TD should be called. If the splinter *was* explained (perhaps because memory was jogged by a question), no harm is done. WTP? If MI is corrected before the opening lead is made, it will often mean that there is no damage, table result stands. If you wait until the hand is over, and opponents claim that their bidding or play was affected by the MI, an adjusted score becomes likely. Isn't it best to avoid that possibility? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 7 20:08:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:08:33 +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 UAA10521 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:08:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa121981 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:07:43 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-224-233.tmns.net.au ([139.134.224.233]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Talented-MailRouter V2.6h 5/274783); 07 Dec 1999 19:07:41 Message-ID: <008a01bf4092$5917d440$e9e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: another hesitation case Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:06:27 +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 Marv French wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: > >> Andras Booc wrote: >> >I would really appreciate your comments about the following >> >case happened in the 1-st league of the Hungarian >> >Team Championship. >> > >> > AK10 >> > AQ74 >> > 857 >> > K86 >> > >> > - J97542 >> >K832 - >> >AKQ94 J3 >> >QJ52 A10973 >> > >> > Q863 >> > J10965 >> > 1076 >> > 4 >> >Bidding >> >W N E S >> >1D Dbl 1Sp 4H >> >Dbl P 4Sp Dbl >> >P* P 5Cl P >> >P Dbl all Pass >> > >> >* after agreed hesitation >> >Would you accept the 5Cl bid? >> >> Analysis of the number of tricks in 4SX is not so easy. >> >You have to assume the best defense that was likely (for N-S) or at >all probable (for E-W), sometimes not an easy task. A quickie look: > >Start with a heart, of course. East will no doubt then lead a >diamond to the queen, ruff a heart, then diamond to the king and >ace, then queen of clubs. If North ducks, another heart ruff, and >that is down 3. If North covers, same result, as East gets a spade >trick eventually. > >I vote for down 3 as an assigned score for both sides, but am >willing to listen to contrary arguments. > I agree with "down 3". Some declarers would lead a trump at Trick Two with gratifying results, because the non-danger hand (North) wins the trump leads, but this is not relevant because some declarers would play as you suggest. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 00:02:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:02:05 +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 AAA11464 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:01:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([213.1.21.13]) by t21mta01-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116) with SMTP id <19991207130336.PGGU29207.t21mta01-app.talk21.com@cmartin> for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:03:36 +0000 Message-ID: <004201bf40b3$443dfce0$0d1501d5@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Round Robin Swiss Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:01:28 -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 Nancy wrote: >At my game this afternoon, I was running a seven table round robin swiss >with 6 rounds and the movement being 1st round up three, 2nd round >boards to home table and down three, Compare. 3rd round up 2 then >boards to home table and down 2 for Rd. 4. Compare. 5th round up 1 then >boards to home table and 6th round down 1 and Compare. During round >three after 3 boards had been played, it was discovered that 2 EW pairs >had gone to the wrong tables. Being somewhat inexperienced in Swiss >Teams, I could not figure out how to save this movement at the end of >the round. I finally had everyone return to their home tables and we >replayed rounds 3 and 4, which was OK except the game ran longer that we >had anticipated. Was there anything I could have done in round 4 to >make it all work????? Did I find a satisfactory solution??? Thanks, >Nancy (these sure are great learning experiences!!! ) ######## If I have understood your posting correctly then in each odd numbered round each team commences two matches which they complete in the next (even numbered) round. That is, the two matches started in round one are completed in round two, etc. In round three, if the EW pairs have started a match against a team that they have already played in rounds one and two then the situation is clearly hopeless and you must do what you did, ie. restart round three. If, however, they have simply started the wrong matches in round three then you can recover by completing those matches in round four and playing the remaining two teams in rounds five and six. This will result in irregular moves in rounds four to six but should not be too difficult to organise. The boards move to the home tables in round four and the EW pairs move to the home tables of the teams just played by their team-mates. In rounds five and six, the EW pairs play against the remaining unplayed teams. David ######### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 00:40:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:40:00 +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 AAA11615 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:39:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-69.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.69]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23125 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:39:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384D0CD8.CEBEECB9@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 14:34:16 +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: Tough Call References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > I've posted the facing hand to this as a problem on rgb. This is the > problem I was faced with: > > Teams; Game All; 9 Board Swiss > > 1D on your left, P, P to you. You hold xxx AKQJTxx xx x. Being fairly > sure that partner will know what it means you call 3D (Occasional pard, > who mostly plays afternoon bridge, but is sometimes a bit naive. (It's > probably a slight overbid, and I accept that). Pass on your left. 3N > from pard (Hooray). Pass, Pass. Questions from your left. > > Partner correctly says "No agreement". Double. It is obvious to you > that opener clearly knows you have this sort of hand. Pass pass to you? > > 1D P P 3D > P 3N P P > X P P ? > Sorry, insufficient information. You know I do not accept "no agreement" as a correct answer, even if it is true. "no agreement" is almost always a shortcut for "no agreement, apart from the ones we all 4 know to exist in our club". So I assume that 3Di means "he's asking me to bid 3NT if I have a diamond stopper", and that this is fully understood by all 4 players. > Now try it when partner makes up some HdW type story about "pard > obviously has diamonds". It cost us the overall win btw. > aha - partner was wrong all along, and by giving a less than full explanation, he has covered this up. What do you want me to say - the dWs is wrong ? You should not tell all, because you might say something wrong ?? Please John, give me some credit. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 00:39:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:39:57 +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 AAA11609 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:39:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-69.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.69]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23099 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:39:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384D0889.F04BED56@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 14:15:53 +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: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "David J. Grabiner" wrote: > > At 1:06 PM +0100 12/6/99, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >When speaking of correct information, I would be happy to > >understand that 15-17 inlcudes some 14 and/or 18 counts. I > >would also be happy to have my opponents explain, we don't > >use Goren, and this opening promises 25.5 - 27.5 Herman > >Complex Points, which I will explain if you want, but > >suffice it to say that this is approximately 15-17. > > > >That's all OK. > > >But when a regulation stipulates that a system that allows > >an opening of 9HCP is illegal, then any opeing below 10HCP > >is illegal. > > >That's the only way a system policy can be policed ! > > The rule says "agreement"; in any other case of an agreement, it is > standard to violate the letter of the agreement with a hand whose value is > not perfectly measured. > The footnote : the TD is to assume misinformation rather than misbid. Any bid that corresponds to the "spirit" of a system must be considered systemic. That is the only consistent way to police our game. > And the ACBL uses the same rule in many other cases but does not enforce it > in the same way. If your weak 2-bid agreement is a range wider than 7 HCP, > you may not use conventions. If your agreement is 5-11 HCP, you will > probably open 2S on KJT9xx x T9x T9x. The wording of the rule is > identical, but you can bid 2S on that hand without violating it. > Well, I don't accept you can. You are obviously playing 4-11, and have written 5-11 on your CC in order to be allowed to play it. Now you are twice wrong : you are playing an illegal system, and covering it up by providing MI ! > The correct standard should be that a 9-count for a 10-12 1NT opening is > not inherently a violation, but it must be a hand for which there is a > legitimate bridge reason for the bid. The same applies to the 2S bid above > (on a version of the Marty Bergen hand); this hand clearly has the values, > but Qxxxxx x Qxx xxx does not. I agree that the above hand is stronger than this one. Yet the above one is still only 4HCP. If you say you are promising 5HCP, you are lying. And if you say you promise 4+, you are playing a forbidden system. Conclusion : you are not allowed to open that hand. Sorry. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 00:39:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:39:54 +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 AAA11607 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:39:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-69.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.69]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23088 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:39:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384D075A.C2F55989@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 14:10:50 +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: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <384BA6AD.74F30EE6@village.uunet.be> <09b701bf4027$592a2660$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > > > > But when a regulation stipulates that a system that allows > > an opening of 9HCP is illegal, then any opening below 10HCP > > is illegal. > > It is interesting that the ACBL nowhere (AFAIK) defines the point count > system being used to formulate their regulations. "10 HCP" might well be > Herman Complex Points, who knows? Of course I created the name to fit the acronym. > > > > That's the only way a system policy can be policed ! > > Some of us prefer the way the Laws refer to hand strengths. L40D: "Zonal > authorities may...regulate partnership understandings (even if not > conventional) that permits the partnership's initial actions at the one > level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength." We are not entering the realm of the right of the ZA to issue the regulation it has made. That's another topic. > Using HCP for policing ease is okay, provided it is specified that any > such point count is only a guide, not to be taken literally with no > deviation. Opening one of a suit with 7 HCP is illegal according to > Meckstroth, so you can't agree to open 1S with seven spades AK and no > outside jack, but an outside jack makes it okay? That's pretty > ridiculous. > Yes it is, so the regulation is ridiculous. But one has to draw a line somewhere. If this means that a hand with a bare jack can be opened, but the other one can't, then so be it. I prefer regulations with ridiculous side-effects to unenforceable ones. > Maybe the HCP policies concerned with non-conventional calls, other than > the possibility mentioned by L40D, should be judged illegal. Using > conventions to control the legality of non-conventional calls seems to > violate L40D, which states the *only* sort of regulation that can apply > to a call that is not a convention. Saying that no convention may be > used in connection with some non-conventional understanding surely > constitutes a regulation of that understanding. > > > After all, it is not terribly difficult to also count your > > HCP in cases of doubt, is it ? > > No, but I shouldn't have to bother. > Whyever not ? > The ACBL Convention Charts, which are maintained by the BoD and are the > only authoritative basis for the regulations we are discussing > (Meckstroth is interpreting, not determining, BoD policy), use such > words as "indicating," "promising," or "showing" some minimum HCP > strength. These words do not convey the same rigid requirement that > "having" would convey. Yes indeed the regulations use those words. For precisely the reasons you enumerate below. > As long as a partner will assume you have a > minimum of 10 HCP, then an *occasional* minor deviation, whether as a > bridge tactic (to use the phrase employed by *Duplicate Decisions*) or a > judgment of strength based on something more sophisticated than 4-3-2-1, > should be acceptable. > No it should not. > Another point. Psychs of all non-conventional calls are legal. Pros > often get away with out-of-legal-range weak two bids when playing with > clients by telling the TD, "It was just a psych." Meckstroth does not > have the authority to ban psychs. > They are not psychs. They cannot be proven to be outside the system, so they are inside it. So it is an illegal system. There is just one solution : they are banned. True psychs are not banned, which is why the regulations says "promises". Similarly, miscounting is not banned. I have once opened a hand after a terrible miscount. I held only 9 points but had counted 13 ! (yes I was drunk at the time). But when a pro says "I'm in third hand, non-vulnerable, so I decided to psyche", I don't accept that this is non-systemic. > I have asked Gary Blaiss, Chief Tournament Director (I think his title > is) of the ACBL, to comment on all this. I'll relay his answer to BLML > when I get it. He is a very busy guy, so it may take a while. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > Apologies for the length, it's a difficult subject It is indeed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 00:51:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:51:00 +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 AAA11670 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:50:48 +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 NAA14714; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:50:23 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA09949; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:49:59 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 07 Dec 1999 13:49:58 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 NAA07921; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:49:57 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA07808; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:49:56 GMT Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:49:56 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199912071349.NAA07808@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: nancy@pinehurst.net Subject: Re: Round Robin Swiss Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Tue Dec 7 04:23:28 1999 > Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:46:53 -0500 > From: Nancy T Dressing > At my game this afternoon, I was running a seven table round robin swiss > with 6 rounds and the movement being 1st round up three, 2nd round > boards to home table and down three, Compare. 3rd round up 2 then > boards to home table and down 2 for Rd. 4. Compare. 5th round up 1 then > boards to home table and 6th round down 1 and Compare. During round > three after 3 boards had been played, it was discovered that 2 EW pairs > had gone to the wrong tables. Being somewhat inexperienced in Swiss > Teams, I could not figure out how to save this movement at the end of > the round. I finally had everyone return to their home tables and we > replayed rounds 3 and 4, which was OK except the game ran longer that we > had anticipated. Was there anything I could have done in round 4 to > make it all work????? Did I find a satisfactory solution??? Thanks, > Nancy (these sure are great learning experiences!!! ) > Hi >From your clear description of the intended movement, I think this is just a multiple teams movement not really "swiss". To answer whether you can recover, it may depend on where the two EW pairs had gone and whether the boards were being redealt for each pair of rounds. If we assume that EW in round 3 are not playing pairs they have played in rounds 1 or 2, then in round 4 EW pass the boards to their team mates and play the team mates of the pair that their team mates played in round 3. If EW are now playing boards they played in rounds 1/2 (if not redealing for each pair of rounds) then they should redeal and replay rounds 3/4. In round 5, EW move to play a team they have not yet played (this would need to be worked out by the TD during round 4) and the boards will need to be redealt. The final movement is boards to team mates, EW to the NS they have not played (!) Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 01:23:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:23:25 +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 BAA11913 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:23:14 +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 11vLW6-000Ps4-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:22:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:29:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Round Robin Swiss References: <384C832D.EA1B7E75@pinehurst.net> In-Reply-To: <384C832D.EA1B7E75@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: >At my game this afternoon, I was running a seven table round robin swiss >with 6 rounds and the movement being 1st round up three, 2nd round >boards to home table and down three, Compare. 3rd round up 2 then >boards to home table and down 2 for Rd. 4. Compare. 5th round up 1 then >boards to home table and 6th round down 1 and Compare. During round >three after 3 boards had been played, it was discovered that 2 EW pairs >had gone to the wrong tables. Being somewhat inexperienced in Swiss >Teams, I could not figure out how to save this movement at the end of >the round. I finally had everyone return to their home tables and we >replayed rounds 3 and 4, which was OK except the game ran longer that we >had anticipated. Was there anything I could have done in round 4 to >make it all work????? Did I find a satisfactory solution??? Thanks, >Nancy (these sure are great learning experiences!!! ) First of all, let me just correct the nomenclature: you were playing a "Multiple Teams", or a "Round Robin Teams", but not a "Swiss Teams". Swiss means that your next opponents have [in principle] as near a score to you as possible. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 8 01:54:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA12058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:54:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA12052 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:54:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:53:16 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991207094906.00852210@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 09:49:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <384D0889.F04BED56@village.uunet.be> References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:15 PM 12/7/99 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> And the ACBL uses the same rule in many other cases but does not enforce it >> in the same way. If your weak 2-bid agreement is a range wider than 7 HCP, >> you may not use conventions. If your agreement is 5-11 HCP, you will >> probably open 2S on KJT9xx x T9x T9x. The wording of the rule is >> identical, but you can bid 2S on that hand without violating it. >> The same applies to the 2S bid above >> (on a version of the Marty Bergen hand); this hand clearly has the values, >> but Qxxxxx x Qxx xxx does not. > >I agree that the above hand is stronger than this one. Yet >the above one is still only 4HCP. If you say you are >promising 5HCP, you are lying. And if you say you promise >4+, you are playing a forbidden system. Conclusion : you >are not allowed to open that hand. Sorry. Let's add a stray jack to the second hand to make it: Qxxxxx x Qxx Jxx. I think most people would still consider KJT9xx x T9x T9x to be a stronger hand. But, you are saying that I can open the first, but not the second, 2S when playing 5-11 HCP weak twos. It would seem that I am no longer able to use my judgment in this situation (unless my judgment involves strict adherence to a 4-3-2-1 HCP count). And, this suggests that the ACBL may regulate what evaluation technique its player use. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 02:49:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 02:49:34 +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 CAA12400 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 02:49:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis ([131.158.186.130]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Tue, 07 Dec 1999 10:40:52 -0500 Message-ID: <00b901bf40ca$8fae4ec0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <384D0CD8.CEBEECB9@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Tough Call Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:48:48 -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: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Tough Call > "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > I've posted the facing hand to this as a problem on rgb. This is the > > problem I was faced with: > > > > Teams; Game All; 9 Board Swiss > > > > 1D on your left, P, P to you. You hold xxx AKQJTxx xx x. Being fairly > > sure that partner will know what it means you call 3D (Occasional pard, > > who mostly plays afternoon bridge, but is sometimes a bit naive. (It's > > probably a slight overbid, and I accept that). Pass on your left. 3N > > from pard (Hooray). Pass, Pass. Questions from your left. > > > > Partner correctly says "No agreement". Double. It is obvious to you > > that opener clearly knows you have this sort of hand. Pass pass to you? > > > > 1D P P 3D > > P 3N P P > > X P P ? > > > > Sorry, insufficient information. > You know I do not accept "no agreement" as a correct answer, > even if it is true. Then you are ignoring the existence of L40A. >"no agreement" is almost always a > shortcut for "no agreement, apart from the ones we all 4 > know to exist in our club". This would be general bridge knowledge, but does not fall under the category of "special partnership agreement", IMO. Undiscussed meanings that everybody knows about are not particular to the partnership. The test should be: does the partner of the bidder have any information about the meaning of a call, through discussion or experience with this particular partner, that is not available to the opponents? If so, a special partnership agreement exists. The SO's, through their disclosure regulations, determine which of these agreements are alertable, but all such information must be made available and disclosed on request. If the partner of the bidder has the same information available about the meaning of the bid as the opponents (in the absence of discussion), then a special partnership agreement does not exist. The object of the dislosure regulations is to insure that one side does not have an unfair advantage by concealing its agreements from the opponents (IMO). It is a distortion of this goal to require that a side disclose agreements that it does not have, or to create a situation where the only way that a casual partnership can meet the level of disclosure imposed by the TD is to have a set of agreements that would rival that of Rodwell-Meckstroth. >So I assume that 3Di means > "he's asking me to bid 3NT if I have a diamond stopper", and > that this is fully understood by all 4 players. > I would assume the same, but if the partnership had never discussed or played this together, they do not have an agreement. It would fall under "general bridge knowledge", which would not be disclosable. > > Now try it when partner makes up some HdW type story about "pard > > obviously has diamonds". It cost us the overall win btw. > > > > aha - partner was wrong all along, and by giving a less than > full explanation, he has covered this up. > > What do you want me to say - the dWs is wrong ? You should > not tell all, because you might say something wrong ?? > > Please John, give me some credit. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 03:01:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:01:30 +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 DAA12448 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:01:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa131238 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:52:26 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-222-242.tmns.net.au ([139.134.222.242]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Gentle-MailRouter V2.6h 5/377330); 08 Dec 1999 01:52:26 Message-ID: <076a01bf40ca$e2235100$e9e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:59:14 +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 Michael Dennis wrote: >At 12:21 AM 12/6/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: >>L75D2 doesn't exempt those playing with screens, does it?. When 5C >>was passed out, declarer knew the opponent on the other side had not >>been told what 5C meant. Doesn't he have to tell her? > >But he doesn't "know" anything of the sort. He can only guess, based on the >circumstantial evidence of partner's pass, which could have other >explanations. At the risk of being charged with opening Pandora's Box, I'm going to quote from a law: L75D2, the one Marv refers to above: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation.......After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy...), the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, the partner's explanation was erroneous." He therefore doesn't have to "know" anything, does he? *In his opinion* ....."can only guess" ...hmm. In a recent thread, you guys were telling me all about the usage of words like "must" in the Laws. I see the word "must"..."inform the opponents"....but nothing about "must be an erroneous explanation", though......hmm. L75D1 hasn't been mentioned yet, although it seems relevant to Edouard's two problems. Does L75D1 apply with Screens? If not, why not? Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 03:01:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:01:21 +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 DAA12442 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:01:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ra131239 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:52:27 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-222-242.tmns.net.au ([139.134.222.242]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-All-New-MailRouter V2.6h 5/377330); 08 Dec 1999 01:52:27 Message-ID: <076b01bf40ca$e2c20200$e9e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 02:17:14 +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 Michael Dennis wrote: >At 06:34 PM 12/3/99 +0100, Edouard wrote: >>1)Australian opponents, (playing skip bids as you will discover ;-) ) >>the auction goes with no bidding from our side, >>1NT 2C* *general inquiry >>3D** 5C*** **5cards, good hand *** splinter >>all pass >> >>we were playing with screen so i was the only defender to know that my RHO >>had a singleton C (i was East) and that we were defending a silly contract >> >>do you think my partner is entitled to know what is really happening? >>if partner misdefend and we get "only" down 2 or 3 instead of down 5 can >>we get redress? >> >Your partner is entitled to know the opponents' agreements. If their >agreement is that 5C is a splinter, then your partner has received MI, and >any failure to defend optimally consequent to such MI should be redressed. > >OTOH, if it is the 5C bidder who is wrong (i.e., 5C is, by agreement, >natural), then it is you who have been mis-informed, but this >mis-information is not likely to cause you to mis-defend, so in this case, >any sub-optimal defense (presumably by your partner) is not redressable. > >In making a ruling about this case, the TD is instructed to presume that >the 5C-bidder has bid within the agreed methods, in which case the defense is not redressable according to your previous paragraph, >unless the opponents can provide evidence in support of their >contention that 5C really is a splinter. in which case the MI should be redressed, you say above. So the Aussies are meant to go searching for evidence that 5C was a splinter so that their French OPPONENTS can obtain redress? It may be that I'm from Downunder and have misunderstood something, but this seems a bit strange, n'est-ce pas? Herman said that Michael was correct, so I fear I'm not thinking clearly. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. That's not how we defeated France in the tennis or the Rugby. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 03:46:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:46:38 +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 DAA12643 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:46:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa131706 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 02:44:28 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-221-115.tmns.net.au ([139.134.221.115]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Supercalafragalistic-MailRouter V2.6h 5/383025); 08 Dec 1999 02:44:27 Message-ID: <07ec01bf40d2$269d0e00$e9e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Tough Call Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:43:11 +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 Herman de Wael wrote: >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> I've posted the facing hand to this as a problem on rgb. This is the >> problem I was faced with: >> >> Teams; Game All; 9 Board Swiss >> >> 1D on your left, P, P to you. You hold xxx AKQJTxx xx x. Being fairly >> sure that partner will know what it means you call 3D (Occasional pard, >> who mostly plays afternoon bridge, but is sometimes a bit naive. (It's >> probably a slight overbid, and I accept that). Pass on your left. 3N >> from pard (Hooray). Pass, Pass. Questions from your left. >> >> Partner correctly says "No agreement". Double. It is obvious to you >> that opener clearly knows you have this sort of hand. Pass pass to you? >> >> 1D P P 3D >> P 3N P P >> X P P ? >> > >Sorry, insufficient information. >You know I do not accept "no agreement" as a correct answer, >even if it is true. Herman, I do not understand how John can prevent his partner from saying something which you consider inappropriate. The problem John faces is that he is not his partner's keeper, and his partner's explanation, like it or not, has happened. John now has to make a call. John, Your 3D call is an overbid, compensated perhaps by having some preemptive value. I have partnered Michael Courtney, so I am quite good at spotting overbids. Do you have UI from partner's explanation? I tend to think not to a great extent, because partner's explanation is the explanation which you expected him to give. But there is a little bit of UI; you know that he might have anything for his 3NT bid. Without the "no agreement" you still would think he might have anything for a 3NT bid but the chance of a correct understanding of your 3D call is then higher. Will the TD think you have UI? Well, on rgb, you reveal that you are at Wiesbaden with Kojak as CTD.... Were you planning to sit 3NT if doubled, had there been no UI? I can't tell. I'd pass the double, partly due to concerns about UI, but I think you are entitled to pull to 4H if you judge so from LHO's vibes. I think the TD and AC may support this view. John continued: > Now try it when partner makes up some HdW type story about "pard > obviously has diamonds". It cost us the overall win btw. > i.e. partner makes his best guess, and guesses wrongly. Alas now you really do have UI, I think. Diamonds could be wide open. Removing to 4H is made clearer by partner's explanation. Especially if his guessed explanation was that you were strong with diamonds. I think that you are ethically obliged under L73C to pass now, with high expectation of incurring a penalty. I'm not absolutely sure about any of this, though. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 04:17:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 04:17:34 +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 EAA12725 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 04:17:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from p9ds05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.158] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11vOEM-0000lV-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 17:16:50 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Round Robin Swiss Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 17:19:38 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf40d7$3d8c1480$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: Nancy T Dressing To: Bridge Laws Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 4:13 AM Subject: Round Robin Swiss >At my game this afternoon, I was running a seven table round robin swiss >with 6 rounds and the movement being 1st round up three, 2nd round >boards to home table and down three, Compare. 3rd round up 2 then >boards to home table and down 2 for Rd. 4. Compare. 5th round up 1 then >boards to home table and 6th round down 1 and Compare. During round >three after 3 boards had been played, it was discovered that 2 EW pairs >had gone to the wrong tables. Being somewhat inexperienced in Swiss >Teams, I could not figure out how to save this movement at the end of >the round. I finally had everyone return to their home tables and we >replayed rounds 3 and 4, which was OK except the game ran longer that we >had anticipated. Was there anything I could have done in round 4 to >make it all work????? Did I find a satisfactory solution??? Thanks, >Nancy (these sure are great learning experiences!!! ) As others have said, this is not what we know as Swiss. Swiss is a self handicapping movement where players who are doing well move to play those who are also doing well and vice verca. I hope Nancy is calling this Swiss because the boards are shuffled at the end of every match.(two rounds complete a match in this movement) However in a multiple teams event it does not actually matter if the wrong boards are played, as long as the same wrong boards are played at both tables involved in the head to head. Nancy discovered this at quite a good time. It is surely certain that the E/W pairs were sitting at a wrong table that they had not sat at before. Instructions could have been " everyone else move correctly and the errant e/ws (if just the two of them)move incorrectly once again. There will be two seats left and one will be where they need to be. If there are 3 pairs involved you might have to share boards but the priority is that AvB plays the same deal as BvA. and CvD plays the same deal as DvC If you are not confident that youv'e got it right shuffle all the boards before round 5. Boards can be shuffled and dealt between round 2 and 3, and/or 4 and 5 but not otherwise. If we knew who did what and where they sat we could draw a grid to check the accuracy of the position adjustment. Solution for next time - give them table movement cards. Most honest TDs will admit, been there, done that :-)) Cheers Anne > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 04:19:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 04:19:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA12743 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 04:19:34 +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 ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:19:24 -0800 Message-ID: <0a4601bf40d6$e389c860$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <000d01bf3e9e$38cee020$2b5408c3@dodona> <082a01bf3eaa$0999cca0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <384BA4FB.8032366F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:07:37 -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 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: > > > > > > the TD before the opening lead to report the failure to Alert, > > > > > > > +=+ with screens? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I think so. Declarer will certainly know there was no Alert on the other > > side when 5C gets passed. This MI must be reported right away, nicht > > wahr? I overlooked the possibility that the splinter was explained after it was passed (temporary mental lapse), but see below. > > > > I don't think so. > Or at least, I would not advise the players to do so. > It would be very difficult for them to make the distinction, > at the table, between a wrong explanation and a wrong bid. > So all they would be revealing to (the other) opponent (his > side already knows of the problem), is that there has been a > misunderstanding. > Which is non-entitled information. > Something got lost here. There are three possibilities: (1) Misexplanation (no Alert on the other side, no explanation). Declarer *knows* that 5C is a splinter by partnership agreement. In this case misbid is not a possibility for the 5C bid, so the MI should be cleared up before the opening lead is made, beginning with a call to the TD. Isn't that what L75D2 and its footnote require? (2) Misbid (there is no agreement about 5C). Declarer realizes his mistake when partner passes, or maybe just hoped that partner would read the bid as a splinter. He need say nothing. (3) Temporary blunder by dummy, who realized 5C was a splinter after passing, and explained it to screenmate before the last pass. Declarer has no way of knowing this, but calls the TD to make sure that (1) hasn't happened. Any harm in that? Glancing at Edouard's first post, I don't see any indication whether 5C was (2) or not. The three asterisks by the 5C bid, with a note "***splinter" could be interpreted as splinter by partnership agreement or splinter by intent without partnership agreement. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 05:12:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA12943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 05:12:15 +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 FAA12933 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 05:12:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29712 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:11:43 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:10:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: >"David J. Grabiner" wrote: >> At 1:06 PM +0100 12/6/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >> And the ACBL uses the same rule in many other cases but does not enforce it >> in the same way. If your weak 2-bid agreement is a range wider than 7 HCP, >> you may not use conventions. If your agreement is 5-11 HCP, you will >> probably open 2S on KJT9xx x T9x T9x. The wording of the rule is >> identical, but you can bid 2S on that hand without violating it. >Well, I don't accept you can. You are obviously playing >4-11, and have written 5-11 on your CC in order to be >allowed to play it. Now you are twice wrong : you are >playing an illegal system, and covering it up by providing >MI ! I don't think that this is MI. If I play 1NT as "15-17", and then open 1NT on AQT Ax T9x AT98x, is this MI to the opponents? Many good players will do this, because they want partner to treat this hand as a 15-count. This is the same situation as above, except that playing 14-17 is allowed. The ACBL used to have a rule that a weak 2-bid had to be at least 5 HCP; this was changed because of an argument by Marty Bergen that it didn't make sense to limit judgment on hands like the one above. And whether the current situation makes sense or not, it is the ACBL's interpretation. If an opponent opens 2S on QT98xx x xxx ?xx, with 5-11 HCP listed on his card, and I play him for the CA rather than the CQ because I expect to find 5 HCP, I have no recourse. The TD will not order this player never to open a 4 HCP weak 2-bid again. >I agree that the above hand is stronger than this one. Yet >the above one is still only 4HCP. If you say you are >promising 5HCP, you are lying. Unfortuneatly, this type of "promise" encourages weasel-wording. If you play Flannery, for example, then the 1S response to 1H "promises five spades" if you are asked. However, if you hold KQJT x xxxxx xxx, you'll probably bid 1S anyway, as you don't want to declare 1NT and don't mind playing in a 4-3 spade fit. An honest explanation would have to be "tends to promise five spades". From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 05:12:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA12944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 05:12:15 +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 FAA12934 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 05:12:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29709; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:11:42 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001901bf4063$5cd0f000$f6d43ad0@hdavis> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:09:11 -0500 To: "Hirsch Davis" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Is it an LA to assume partner made a mistake? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:30 PM -0500 12/6/99, Hirsch Davis wrote: >> South dealer, E-W vulnerable, matchpoints. >> >> S W N E >> P P 1NT 2D! >> 2NT! 3H 4C P >> However, North explained 2NT as, "asks me to bid clubs." South's LA's >> depend on what he would expect North to have for the bid without any UI. >> The UI may suggest that North has four or five clubs and says nothing about >> his diamonds, or it may suggest that North understands the bid but doesn't >> understand the intricacies of proper explanation. >2N is Lebensohl, which is artificial and requests N to relay to 3C in the >absence of competition, after which the 2N bidder will further describe his >hand. The phrase "asks me to bid clubs" is a partial explanation, and omits >the nuances of this particular pair's agreements. However, it is a correct >explanation, even if incomplete. I cannot discern how you can say that S >has UI that suggests N has 4 or 5 clubs from this explanation. "Asks me to bid clubs" could be interpreted as "shows clubs", so that 4C was intended as a raise of the transferred suit. Alternatively, it may be that North thought she had to bid clubs even if there was competition. (Some players misunderstand conventions in this way.) This suggests even more strongly that South correct to 4D with a diamond suit. >Consequently, I can't even begin to address the rest of the post. S should >be concerned that the full nuances of the agreement were not explained, and >should summon the TD at the proper time to report the incomplete >explanation. I was South, and I did this (on the actual hand, I wound up on defense, West was declarer and asked a follow-up question before the lead and didn't receive a helpful answer, and I corrected the explanation after the hand.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 05:27:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 05:27:58 +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 FAA13011 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 05:27:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-211.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.211]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA08714; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:27:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00a001bf40e0$f9e43dc0$d384d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:29:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson >Robert E. Harris wrote: >>The 12-9-7-5-3 point count (for AKQJT) gives 144 points in a standard 52 >>card deck. The 4321 count gives 40 HCP in the deck. On a proportional >>basis, (15/40)x144 = 54 points for a minimum (15 HCP) 1 NT. >>JTx-QJT-QJT-KQJT (13 HCP) is 62 points while Axx-Axx-Axx-Axxx (16 HCP) is >>48 points. So the ACBL would have trouble dealing with a 12-9 bidder who >>automatically opens 1 NT on the 13 HCP hand and says the 16 HP hand is too >>weak to open 1 NT. They just wouldn't let [it(?), them(?), you(?)] do it. >> >>(Note resolutions of gender problem in last sentence. The Chinese way?) >> >>This is a real problem in translating the old Vienna count, as I found when >>I was reading the English version of Dr. Stern's book on the Vienna system. >>I think anyone using the Vienna count would now and then run into director >>calls. Honor trick count (Culbertson) would probably meet the same trouble >>now. Few under 70 know about it. > > *coff* > > I learnt using Culbertson honour-tricks - and I am not quite seventy >yet! > I am still on the bright side of 60 and played honour tricks for some years before being introduced to the Work count by some folks who had Goren's latest book. I think neither my mother nor aunt ever switched over. I know some folks young enough to be banned from Seniors events who know it quite well, :-) I would expect most better players to be well aware of it, even if they play more modern methods. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 07:43:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 07:43:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from ws2.icl.co.uk (mailgate.icl.co.uk [194.176.223.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13412 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 07:43:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.icl.co.uk (mailgate [172.16.2.3]) by ws2.icl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA10973 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:44:26 GMT Received: from vguard1.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA02872; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:42:12 GMT Received: FROM x400.icl.co.uk BY vguard1.icl.co.uk ; Tue Dec 07 20:43:30 1999 0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by x400.icl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.2) id UAA04628; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:42:11 GMT X400-Received: by mta umg in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Tue, 07 Dec 99 20:41:40 +0000 X400-Received: by mta fel01xc in /PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Tue, 07 Dec 99 20:25:42 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Tue, 07 Dec 99 20:33:03 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Tue, 07 Dec 99 21:41:00 +0100 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 99 21:41:00 +0100 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G90021B1330D01000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: nancy@pinehurst.net , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: From: "Jan Romanski" To: nancy@pinehurst.net To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <384C832D.EA1B7E75@pinehurst.net> Importance: normal Subject: RE:Round Robin Swiss Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing: >At my game this afternoon, I was running a seven table round robin >swiss with 6 rounds and the movement being 1st round up three, 2nd >round boards to home table and down three, Compare. 3rd round up >2 then boards to home table and down 2 for Rd. 4. Compare. 5th >round up 1 then boards to home table and 6th round down 1 and >Compare. During round three after 3 boards had been played, it was >discovered that 2 EW pairs had gone to the wrong tables. Being >somewhat inexperienced in Swiss Teams, I could not figure out how >to save this movement at the end of the round. I finally had >everyone return to their home tables and we replayed rounds 3 and 4, >which was OK except the game ran longer that we had anticipated. >Was there anything I could have done in round 4 to make it all >work????? Did I find a satisfactory solution??? Thanks, >Nancy (these sure are great learning experiences!!! ) > If at least one of this two misplaced pairs have started to play against a team they have already played (in round one or two), then Nancy's solution is only possible. It easy to show, that this solution is only possible at all. Let have look (one row for one round) at normal positioning in this tournament: 1. 1-5 2-6 3-7 4-1 5-2 6-3 7-4 2. 5-1 6-2 7-3 1-4 2-5 3-6 4-7 3. 4-2 5-3 6-4 7-5 1-6 2-7 3-1 4. 2-4 3-5 4-6 5-7 6-1 7-2 1-3 5. 7-6 1-7 2-1 3-2 4-3 5-4 6-5 6. 6-7 7-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 Now suppose that one of those pairs was 1EW (we can do it without loss of generality). There is only two ways to fulfil the assumption above: exactly two pairs on wrong places, ie. exchanged, no repated matches. 3. 4-2 5-3 6-4 7-1 1-6 2-7 3-5 3. 4-2 5-3 6-1 7-5 1-6 2-7 3-4 So we have 5-3,3-5 or 6-1,1-6 in one round and we must start round#3 again - as Nancy did. Jan Romanski ________________________________________________ phone: +48(0)22 6310566 mobile: +48 601403308 email: jan.romanski@icl.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 10:05:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:05:00 +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 KAA13833 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:04:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA29645 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:03:57 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:03 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods 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: <3.0.6.32.19991207094906.00852210@mail.maine.rr.com> >> If your weak 2-bid agreement is a range wider than 7 HCP, >> you may not use conventions. > Let's add a stray jack to the second hand to make it: Qxxxxx x Qxx Jxx. > I think most people would still consider KJT9xx x T9x T9x to be a > stronger hand. But, you are saying that I can open the first, but not > the second, 2S when playing 5-11 HCP weak twos. It would seem that I > am no longer able > to use my judgment in this situation (unless my judgment involves strict > adherence to a 4-3-2-1 HCP count). And, this suggests that the ACBL may > regulate what evaluation technique its player use. How about: 5-11 HCP weak twos allow 2S on anything from 65432,432,432,KQ to say AKQJT98,-,JT9876,-. This must be a finite number of all possible hands (say 1,000,000*). My disciplined weak twos which require 4 of the top 6 cards and a 6 card suit and devalue side Q/Js could be bid on anything from QJT976,x,T987,xx to AKT932,Q2,432,Q2 and form a different subset of all possible hands (say 800,000*). Since my methods permit opening on fewer hands than the 5-11 method the range is indeed narrower. Of course 5-11 is an inappropriate CC description but that shouldn't be an insurmountable barrier. *Don't quote these numbers - I know they're way off. BTW I thought the ACBL had now dropped this restriction. No such interpretation is possible with the <10pt 1NT but so what. The ACBL merely requires you to understand the 4321 count when deciding if you wish to use conventions over 1NT. Since natural bidding includes 3 card minors, canape, control showing cue bids, strong and weak jumps etc it should be perfectly possible to start with an 8.75 to 11.25 NT and arrive at a perfectly playable system. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 10:41:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:41:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from t21mta00-app.talk21.com (mta00.talk21.com [62.172.192.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13945 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:41:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([213.1.48.52]) by t21mta00-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116) with SMTP id <19991207234023.TMSA9436.t21mta00-app.talk21.com@cmartin> for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:40:23 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01bf410c$9e9c0020$970c01d5@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: RE:Round Robin Swiss Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:36:39 -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 Jan wrote: >Nancy T Dressing: >>At my game this afternoon, I was running a seven table round robin >>swiss with 6 rounds and the movement being 1st round up three, 2nd >>round boards to home table and down three, Compare. 3rd round up >>2 then boards to home table and down 2 for Rd. 4. Compare. 5th >>round up 1 then boards to home table and 6th round down 1 and >>Compare. During round three after 3 boards had been played, it was >>discovered that 2 EW pairs had gone to the wrong tables. Being >>somewhat inexperienced in Swiss Teams, I could not figure out how >>to save this movement at the end of the round. I finally had >>everyone return to their home tables and we replayed rounds 3 and 4, >>which was OK except the game ran longer that we had anticipated. >>Was there anything I could have done in round 4 to make it all >>work????? Did I find a satisfactory solution??? Thanks, >>Nancy (these sure are great learning experiences!!! ) >> > >If at least one of this two misplaced pairs have started to play >against a team they have already played (in round one or two), then >Nancy's solution is only possible. It easy to show, that this >solution is only possible at all. Let have look (one row for one >round) at normal positioning in this tournament: > >1. 1-5 2-6 3-7 4-1 5-2 6-3 7-4 >2. 5-1 6-2 7-3 1-4 2-5 3-6 4-7 > >3. 4-2 5-3 6-4 7-5 1-6 2-7 3-1 >4. 2-4 3-5 4-6 5-7 6-1 7-2 1-3 > >5. 7-6 1-7 2-1 3-2 4-3 5-4 6-5 >6. 6-7 7-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 > >Now suppose that one of those pairs was 1EW (we can do it without loss >of generality). There is only two ways to fulfil the assumption above: >exactly two pairs on wrong places, ie. exchanged, no repated matches. > >3. 4-2 5-3 6-4 7-1 1-6 2-7 3-5 >3. 4-2 5-3 6-1 7-5 1-6 2-7 3-4 > >So we have 5-3,3-5 or 6-1,1-6 in one round and we must start round#3 >again - as Nancy did. > ########## Very well analysed Jan. I hadn't spotted that. However, if the error is discovered before the mid-point in each half of the match then there is nothing stopping the relevant tables swapping the boards that they have played and, in effect, sharing half of two board sets. ######## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 10:46:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:46:48 +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 KAA13975 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:46:41 +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 OAA03591 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:47:11 -0900 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:47:01 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, David J. Grabiner wrote: [snip] > And the ACBL uses the same rule in many other cases but does not enforce it > in the same way. If your weak 2-bid agreement is a range wider than 7 HCP, > you may not use conventions. If your agreement is 5-11 HCP, you will > probably open 2S on KJT9xx x T9x T9x. The wording of the rule is > identical, but you can bid 2S on that hand without violating it. It has been my understanding that this case is treated precisely the same way as a 9-HCP 1NT. The difference, I think, is that the "wronged opponents" look at the 2S hand and say "gee, I would have opened 2S on that too, so I won't call the director." (I haven't seen either happen in a game I played in or directed at, as yet.) Speaking of agreements and range violations... I know several players who say they play "5 to 11" weak twos who haven't ever opened an 11-HCP hand with 2S in their lives, automatically judging those hands worth a 1-bid. What, I wonder, do we do about people like that? Sometime or another someone is going to have to place a queen, giving opener either 9 or 11 HCP, and get it wrong because of misinformation. Problem is, you have to have played against that opponent every week for a year or two before you discover the misinformation even exists. This seems to me to be a rather more insidious problem than the "4-HCP problem" is. Gordon Bower (who is anxiously waiting for David Grabiner to come up with an application of Descartes's Rule of Signs to bridge) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 10:55:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:55:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.magi.com (InfoWeb.Magi.com [204.191.213.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA14029 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:55:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from ip122.ottawa8.dialup.canada.psi.net (default) [154.5.70.122] by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5) id 11vUS0-0002H5-00; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:55:21 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991207185548.007c0070@magi.com> X-Sender: david@magi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 18:55:48 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws" From: David Kent Subject: Re: different explanation of bids In-Reply-To: <0a4601bf40d6$e389c860$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19991203173449.0071c924@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> <07f001bf3e82$bb883640$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <000d01bf3e9e$38cee020$2b5408c3@dodona> <082a01bf3eaa$0999cca0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <384BA4FB.8032366F@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:07 07-12-99 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > >> "Marvin L. French" wrote: >> > >> > > > the TD before the opening lead to report the failure to Alert, >> > > > >> > > +=+ with screens? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > >> > I think so. Declarer will certainly know there was no Alert on the >other >> > side when 5C gets passed. This MI must be reported right away, nicht >> > wahr? > >I overlooked the possibility that the splinter was explained after it >was passed (temporary mental lapse), but see below. >> > >> >> I don't think so. >> Or at least, I would not advise the players to do so. >> It would be very difficult for them to make the distinction, >> at the table, between a wrong explanation and a wrong bid. >> So all they would be revealing to (the other) opponent (his >> side already knows of the problem), is that there has been a >> misunderstanding. >> Which is non-entitled information. >> >Something got lost here. There are three possibilities: > >(1) Misexplanation (no Alert on the other side, no explanation). >Declarer *knows* that 5C is a splinter by partnership agreement. In this >case misbid is not a possibility for the 5C bid, so the MI should be >cleared up before the opening lead is made, beginning with a call to the >TD. Isn't that what L75D2 and its footnote require? > >(2) Misbid (there is no agreement about 5C). Declarer realizes his >mistake when partner passes, or maybe just hoped that partner would read >the bid as a splinter. He need say nothing. > >(3) Temporary blunder by dummy, who realized 5C was a splinter after >passing, and explained it to screenmate before the last pass. Declarer >has no way of knowing this, but calls the TD to make sure that (1) >hasn't happened. Any harm in that? > >Glancing at Edouard's first post, I don't see any indication whether 5C >was (2) or not. The three asterisks by the 5C bid, with a note >"***splinter" could be interpreted as splinter by partnership agreement >or splinter by intent without partnership agreement. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > Perhaps there is another possibility. I direct you to page 54 of the Jan/Feb edition of Bridge Today (talking about the Bermuda Bowl in 1995 in Beijing). "Here is the Strangest Final Contract Award. Boris Baran of the Canadian tean, related the following partscore deal to BT reporter Barry Rigal. The deal proved an enormous problem for the North-South pairs in the round-robin defending against East's three-diamond contract. Maybe the defense can beat three diamonds on a trump lead, but in fact only two North-South pairs went plus on the hand. One pair bought the hand for three clubs, and this is what the Canadians did to the Chinese: Dlr: W S - 6 Vul: none H - AJT85 D - A Rong Molson Shao Baran C - KQ9852 West North East South S - K952 S - AJ ================================= H - Q632 H - K9 Pass 1C 1NT 2H D - 962 D - QJT842 All Pass C - T7 C - A63 S - QT8743 H - 74 D - K73 C - J4 Two hearts, of course, was a transfer and Molson checked out. Shao (East) was on the same side of the screen as Baran (South), who had made the transfer advance. Shao did not know whether Molson had remembered the convention, because he could not see his opponent! I have never seen this position before; nor had Shao, who decided to go for the throat by passing two hearts, rather than bidding three diamonds, which he might have done under 'ordinary' circumstances. Of course, Mark Molson HAD remembered the system, but decided to get out before the doubling started." etc....etc... From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 10:56:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:56:25 +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 KAA14036 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:56:18 +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 OAA04092 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:56:50 -0900 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:56:39 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991207094906.00852210@mail.maine.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On the subject of "a king below average strength" --- Does anyone else thinks that "average strength" means "expected to win 3 1/4 tricks"? This is of course a fuzzy notion to pin down, but I can imagine randomly dealing the other 39 cards out, feeding the deal to a double-dummy solver, deciding what the optimal contract is, and counting how many tricks each hand takes when the hand is played out. I would venture to specualte that if we adopted this method, it would represent rather a major departure from our current ideas of what constitutes a regulatable 1-bid. For instance there are probably a lot of 15-HCP flattish hands that only take 3 tricks, and hence a lot of 12-HCP hands more than a king below average strength, and correspondingly many preempt-type hands (a lot of classic weak twos for instance) that would be good enough. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 11:16:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:16:10 +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 LAA14102 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:15:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from pefs06a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.102.240] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11vUlB-0003XA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 16:15:10 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: RE:Round Robin Swiss Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:18:05 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf4111$b2518680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Jan Romanski To: nancy@pinehurst.net ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 9:08 PM Subject: RE:Round Robin Swiss >If at least one of this two misplaced pairs have started to play >against a team they have already played (in round one or two), then >Nancy's solution is only possible. Yes, but Nancy didn't say that this had happened, and she would have. I think that is the least likely happaning. Players often don't know up from down, and certainly not when it passes the highest or lowest numbered table. Players will often play the same boards twice, but they shout loud and long if they meet the same opps more than once. No, I'll bet that neither errant pair had played their opps on R1 or R2. Well Nancy, am I right? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 11:50:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:50:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from tst.dk (tst.tst.dk [147.29.107.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14209 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:50:48 +1100 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <115201>; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:51:24 +0100 Message-Id: <99Dec8.015124cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:47:32 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA14210 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had planned to follow up on this thread sooner, but a hurricane left me with no electricity for a couple of days. Now I'm back on-line. The Danish NAC decided on a L12C3 score of -1370 for NS, while EW got 75% of 1370 plus 25% of -50, to be calculated on the IMP-difference compared with the other table. As the score on the other table was 1370, EW got -4 IMPs. As a member of the NAC I am glad to see Grattan Endicott recommend this approach, and Steve Willner admitting he could be persuaded into a rouling along these lines. However, Peter Gill and David Stevenson would have given EW full compensation, and David even asks, why I ask the question about a possible double shot. I think Jesper Dybdal has indicated part of the reason for this question already, but I would like to add this possible reason: The finesse should be a 62% line as South is known to have 8 of the 13 missing major cards. The squeeze seems to be slightly antipercentage. Now, do we really want East to be able to choose the percentage line, and just because of the fumble be able to choose the anti-percentage line too, as long as he is careful to choose the "right" line at the table, reserving the alternative for the replay in committee? Or do we want him to make his choice, basing this choice on the fumble if he so wishes, but making him stick to that choice instead of giving him two opportunities to win - by some called a double shot? If East is allowed both opportunities, why do we bother the players with the play of the rest of the hand? I think the above is valid questions. I also think it is possible to argue for no adjustment for East with reference to L73D1 ("at his own risk") and the Lille decision about double shot. Now, as I have seen no support from BLML to the double shot angle, I would very much like to ask this further question: Is the term "double shot" reserved for the situation, where a player chooses an anti-percentage line suggested by variations in an opponents tempo or manner, or is it applicable to a 50-50 guess also? And what if the suggested and chosen line is the percentage line? If it matters, where (roughly) is the dividing line between double shot and no double shot? Finally, just one comment to Peter: I guess South would welcome your opinion that he should stay in division 2 if possible, as his team is struggling to avoid relegation to division 3! :-) Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 13:32:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 13:32:49 +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 NAA14536 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 13:32:41 +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 11vWu6-000PHx-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 02:32:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 02:31:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? References: <99Dec8.015124cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> In-Reply-To: <99Dec8.015124cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> 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 NAA14537 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen wrote: >I had planned to follow up on this thread >sooner, but a hurricane left me with no >electricity for a couple of days. Now I'm >back on-line. > >The Danish NAC decided on a L12C3 score of >-1370 for NS, while EW got 75% of 1370 >plus 25% of -50, to be calculated on the >IMP-difference compared with the other >table. As the score on the other table was >1370, EW got -4 IMPs. > >As a member of the NAC I am glad to see >Grattan Endicott recommend this approach, >and Steve Willner admitting he could be >persuaded into a rouling along these >lines. > >However, Peter Gill and David Stevenson >would have given EW full compensation, and David even asks, why I ask the >question >about a possible double shot. It is normal [and recommended Netiquette] to quote sufficient of the previous posts so that the answer may be understood. I really have no idea what this refers to, and the original posts have expired. If anyone would like me to comment further on this please provide me with the original question and my reply referred to here. BTW, we have been updating the RGB style-guide, which includes quite a lot of Netiquette for bridge posting. If anyone would like to see it, I could post a copy here, or email them a copy. I expect it to get onto my Bridgepage for Pre-Millennium Eve. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 14:00:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:00:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net (smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.39.156]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14646 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:00:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from jayapfelbaum (adsl-151-201-232-240.bellatlantic.net [151.201.232.240]) by smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA00256 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:57:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000b01bf4127$f763b520$f0e8c997@jayapfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: Updated E-mail Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:57:23 -0500 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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please note that my new e-mail address is: japfel@bellatlantic.net Thanks, Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 14:09:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:09:57 +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 OAA14692 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:09:45 +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 11vXTy-0003Kg-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:09:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:03:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Tough Call In-Reply-To: <07ec01bf40d2$269d0e00$e9e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <07ec01bf40d2$269d0e00$e9e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes snip > Well, on rgb, you reveal that you are at >Wiesbaden with Kojak as CTD.... > >Were you planning to sit 3NT if doubled, had there been no UI? >I can't tell. I'd pass the double, partly due to concerns about UI, but I >think you are entitled to pull to 4H if you judge so from LHO's vibes. >I think the TD and AC may support this view. > I would have expected so too. (I would have pulled). >John continued: >> Now try it when partner makes up some HdW type story about "pard >> obviously has diamonds". It cost us the overall win btw. >> > >i.e. partner makes his best guess, and guesses wrongly. Alas now you >really do have UI, I think. Diamonds could be wide open. Removing to >4H is made clearer by partner's explanation. Especially if his guessed >explanation was that you were strong with diamonds. I think that you >are ethically obliged under L73C to pass now, with high expectation >of incurring a penalty. > I said to partner, as I tabled dummy "Partner you're killing us - why didn't you say 'No agreement?'". I'd have expected a PP if I'd bid 4H now 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 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 14:09:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:09:58 +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 OAA14691 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:09:45 +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 11vXTy-0003Kf-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:09:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 02:57:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Tough Call In-Reply-To: <384D0CD8.CEBEECB9@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <384D0CD8.CEBEECB9@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> I've posted the facing hand to this as a problem on rgb. This is the >> problem I was faced with: >> >> Teams; Game All; 9 Board Swiss >> >> 1D on your left, P, P to you. You hold xxx AKQJTxx xx x. Being fairly >> sure that partner will know what it means you call 3D (Occasional pard, >> who mostly plays afternoon bridge, but is sometimes a bit naive. (It's >> probably a slight overbid, and I accept that). Pass on your left. 3N >> from pard (Hooray). Pass, Pass. Questions from your left. >> >> Partner correctly says "No agreement". Double. It is obvious to you >> that opener clearly knows you have this sort of hand. Pass pass to you? >> >> 1D P P 3D >> P 3N P P >> X P P ? >> > >Sorry, insufficient information. >You know I do not accept "no agreement" as a correct answer, >even if it is true. The correct answer is "No agreement". We don't play together often, the sequence has never come up, we have never discussed it and we play in different clubs. When I write "No agreement" I mean "No agreement". What is your call? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 14:20:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:20:31 +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 OAA14758 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:20:23 +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 11vXeI-0009YA-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:20:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 03:18:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > > BTW, we have been updating the RGB style-guide, which includes quite a >lot of Netiquette for bridge posting. If anyone would like to see it, I >could post a copy here, or email them a copy. I expect it to get onto >my Bridgepage for Pre-Millennium Eve. > > You mean by 31 Dec 2000? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 14:27:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:27:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from slot2-14.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot2-14.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.5.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14782 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:27:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot2-14.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA29962 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 22:26:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 22:26:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Tough Call Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've taken a view that partner will get an undiscussed sequence right. I like to limit my views to only one per hand ;-). I'm a passer. BTW, last time I tried this in a first time partnership with a good player he guessed wrong; I had the opportunity to play 3D red/white in a 1-3 fit. It was not a success. I learned that good players won't assume best methods without discussion. Let me guess. Partner explained ala HdW, you pulled to 4H, LHO doubled again, and it rolled, right? Pass is surely a LA; since the UI suggests 4H will be more successful it sounds like an adjustment would be appropriate. Bruce bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au wrote: : I've posted the facing hand to this as a problem on rgb. This is the : problem I was faced with: : Teams; Game All; 9 Board Swiss : 1D on your left, P, P to you. You hold xxx AKQJTxx xx x. Being fairly : sure that partner will know what it means you call 3D (Occasional pard, : who mostly plays afternoon bridge, but is sometimes a bit naive. (It's : probably a slight overbid, and I accept that). Pass on your left. 3N : from pard (Hooray). Pass, Pass. Questions from your left. : Partner correctly says "No agreement". Double. It is obvious to you : that opener clearly knows you have this sort of hand. Pass pass to you? : 1D P P 3D : P 3N P P : X P P ? : Now try it when partner makes up some HdW type story about "pard : obviously has diamonds". It cost us the overall win btw. : 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 Wed Dec 8 14:58:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:58:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.magi.com (InfoWeb.Magi.com [204.191.213.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA14881 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:58:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from ip27.ottawa4.dialup.canada.psi.net (default) [154.5.13.27] by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5) id 11vYEv-00059F-00; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 22:58:06 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991207225835.007b8ec0@magi.com> X-Sender: david@magi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 22:58:35 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Kent Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:18 08-12-99 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes > >snip >> >> BTW, we have been updating the RGB style-guide, which includes quite a >>lot of Netiquette for bridge posting. If anyone would like to see it, I >>could post a copy here, or email them a copy. I expect it to get onto >>my Bridgepage for Pre-Millennium Eve. >> >> >You mean by 31 Dec 2000? >-- >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 > > I believe that is Millenium Eve. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 15:23:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:23:40 +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 PAA14965 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:23:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-45.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.75]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Sandhills) with ESMTP id XAA12219; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:23:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <384DDE33.6A2E830A@pinehurst.net> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 23:27:31 -0500 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: Round Robin Swiss References: <01bf4111$b2518680$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk That's correct, they had not played either pair. Anne is right... They continually complain that have already played these boards even though they are about to reshuffle them and that they have already played this pair. Anne Jones wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Romanski > To: nancy@pinehurst.net ; > bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 9:08 PM > Subject: RE:Round Robin Swiss > > >If at least one of this two misplaced pairs have started to play > >against a team they have already played (in round one or two), then > >Nancy's solution is only possible. > > Yes, but Nancy didn't say that this had happened, and she would have. > I think that is the least likely happaning. Players often don't know up > from down, and certainly not when it passes the highest or lowest > numbered table. Players will often play the same boards twice, but > they shout loud and long if they meet the same opps more than once. > No, I'll bet that neither errant pair had played their opps on R1 or R2. > Well Nancy, am I right? > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 15:40:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:40:50 +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 PAA15079 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:40:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from momsputer (pm2-45.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.75]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Sandhills) with SMTP id XAA13672; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:40:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001f01bf4136$f45df160$4b60040c@momsputer> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <384C832D.EA1B7E75@pinehurst.net> Subject: Re: Round Robin Swiss Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:44:45 -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 OK, but the book I took the movement from, "The Directors Companion" called it a Round Robin Swiss, which allows for all teams to play each other. Does the "Big Pond" have an effect on what we call the games??? Left the book at the club but will get it tomorrow to check it out. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 7:29 AM Subject: Re: Round Robin Swiss > Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >At my game this afternoon, I was running a seven table round robin swiss > >with 6 rounds and the movement being 1st round up three, 2nd round > >boards to home table and down three, Compare. 3rd round up 2 then > >boards to home table and down 2 for Rd. 4. Compare. 5th round up 1 then > >boards to home table and 6th round down 1 and Compare. During round > >three after 3 boards had been played, it was discovered that 2 EW pairs > >had gone to the wrong tables. Being somewhat inexperienced in Swiss > >Teams, I could not figure out how to save this movement at the end of > >the round. I finally had everyone return to their home tables and we > >replayed rounds 3 and 4, which was OK except the game ran longer that we > >had anticipated. Was there anything I could have done in round 4 to > >make it all work????? Did I find a satisfactory solution??? Thanks, > >Nancy (these sure are great learning experiences!!! ) > > First of all, let me just correct the nomenclature: you were playing a > "Multiple Teams", or a "Round Robin Teams", but not a "Swiss Teams". > Swiss means that your next opponents have [in principle] as near a score > to you as possible. > > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 8 15:44:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:44:45 +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 PAA15118 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:44:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehk1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.129]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA10170 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:44:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991207234144.006b08a8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 23:41:44 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: BL Coup Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not too long ago we had a brief thread on the subject of questions which might or might not be legal in the context of the questioner's motivation. This story provides a wrinkle on that theme. Club duplicate. North and West are weak Flt A players. South is an advanced novice. N/S have been playing together on and off for a month or two. East is a shoddy BL type. Bd 16 EW Vul, W dlr xx AJxxx xxxxx x QJxx Txxx xx KQ xx QJx AJTxx Qxxx AKx xxxx AKx Kxx W N E S P P P 1NT 2C* 2D** P 2H P P 3C P P 3H (All pass) *Alerted and explained as DONT (i.e., clubs and a higher ranking suit) **No alert. East asked for an explanation, and was told that it was Stayman ("I think..."). As North tabled his dummy, he said that he had intended 2D as a transfer. At which point sly-boots East summoned the cops. The TD was at first obsessing about the MI (understandably), and needed a little prodding to tumble to the UI implications and the possible restrictions on North's freedom of action as a result. She decided she couldn't be bothered with an analysis, and awarded Avg+ to EW, Avg - to NS. North chose to appeal, feeling that his honor had been maligned. The AC analysis was suitably brief, recognizing that down 2 was the very likely outcome in 3C, and owing to the vulnerablity, judging that EW had in fact profited by the 3H call on balance. Without getting to the issue of the legality of the 3H call, they restored the table result. All in all, a pretty pointless story since EW did all right at -170 anyway. But wait! Go back to that question asked by East. Given his knowledge of the participants' skill levels and methods, East had a pretty good idea of what was happening as soon as 2D went unalerted. He might have figured (and in fact admitted to me in private that he had done) that there could be an advantage in eliciting this kind of response from South, in that it could very well establish UI that would restrict North's freedom of action. So the question this raises is the following: Is it legal/ethical to ask a question for the sole purpose of dragging the opponents into a potential UI situation? Thanks, Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 16:20:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:20:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (mailhop1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15257 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:19:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com ([10.92.226.81]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:17:54 -0500 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, 8 Dec 1999 00:17:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:16:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Unfortuneatly, this type of "promise" encourages weasel-wording. If you >play Flannery, for example, then the 1S response to 1H "promises five >spades" >if you are asked. However, if you hold KQJT x xxxxx xxx, you'll probably >bid 1S anyway, as you don't want to declare 1NT and don't mind playing in a >4-3 spade fit. An honest explanation would have to be "tends to promise >five spades". In "Precision in the 90s", Barry Rigal says something to the effect that "[some bid or other] _shows_ 5 spades, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you will always _have_ 5 spades when you make the bid". He's alluding to the possibility of something like the hand shown above. If bridge judgement is as rigidly limited as Herman seems to want to make it, then IMNSHO the game is no longer bridge, it's something else that isn't nearly as much fun as bridge. Just my tuppence. 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/AwUBOE3qcL2UW3au93vOEQIkQACfdS06GPhquh5XDhEs34+FWF7c0qAAoIP9 HSA8ruPJgWpZlrY6lx9Utp9w =FG3W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 16:53:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:53:47 +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 QAA15338 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:53:39 +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 ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:53:25 -0800 Message-ID: <0aca01bf4140$1ffc3d00$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <99Dec8.015124cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:44:52 -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 BTW, we have been updating the RGB style-guide, which includes quite a lot of Netiquette for bridge posting. If anyone would like to see it, I could post a copy here, or email them a copy. I expect it to get onto my Bridgepage for Pre-Millennium Eve. Why not post here? I'm sure everyone would be interested. I hope you include some guidance on line length, which most of us screw up much of the time. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 19:10:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:10:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15575 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:10:37 +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 ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:10:27 -0800 Message-ID: <0ae501bf4153$3ecd5bc0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991207234144.006b08a8@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: BL Coup Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 00:02:43 -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 Mike Dennis wrote: > Is it legal/ethical to ask a question for the sole purpose of dragging the > opponents into a potential UI situation? > No. And I would extend that to say that it is a doubtful practice to ask an unnecesary question that *may* drag the opponents into a potential UI situation, even if that is not the purpose. A weekly club partner and I decided to try weak notrumps in fourth seat only. The most notable result was that we two old veterans, who had been playing strong notrumps for many decades, would often forget, and either open a strong notrump in fourth seat, or respond to a weak notrump as if it were strong. Now, our CCs were in plain view on the table, plainly marked that a 4th seat 1NT had a range of 11-13 HCP. However, opponents would usually ask about the range unnecessarily (this was before weak notrumps became Announceable). Now, if we were to answer orally instead of pointing at the CC, that answer would be UI. If opener had 16-18 HCP, the UI would constrain his ability to correct for the error. My feeling is that everything on the CC is AI, especially since one cannot tell whether it is a question or the answer that awakens a player to his agreement. However, L16A says that a reply to a question is extraneous information (evidently UI and "extraneous information" are synonymous), so opener must continue to forget or be accused of taking advantage of the UI. Anyway, my point is that the unnecessary questioning of something clearly shown on the CC *may* drag the opponents into a potential UI situation, and is therefore inappropriate if not unethical. Some BLMLers are of the opinion that one *must* create such unnecessary UI when an opponent asks for it. I disagree. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 19:44:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:44:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from bach.ensg.ign.fr (bach.ensg.ign.fr [195.220.92.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15668 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:44:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from pallas.ensg.ign.fr (pallas.ensg.ign.fr [172.31.40.40]) by bach.ensg.ign.fr (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA27948 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:18:13 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19991207175652.006e5944@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> X-Sender: beauvillain@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 18:56:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Edouard Beauvillain Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This one is REALLY more interesting, i mean for you of course but don't forget about UI :-) I guess i am improving my statistics on the list... Edouard ------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 09:26 06/12/99 -0800, Marvin asked >Edouard, > >Does Beauvillain have a translation? yes, it might!!! do i have to answer to this ;-) it is from old french (no joke with your name :-)) ) and means nice or lovely (Beau) , farmer or countryman (villain) funny to know that "vilain" means ugly but please consider this information as UI have a nice day :-) Edouard > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 19:45:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:45:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from bach.ensg.ign.fr (bach.ensg.ign.fr [195.220.92.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15681 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:45:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from pallas.ensg.ign.fr (pallas.ensg.ign.fr [172.31.40.40]) by bach.ensg.ign.fr (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA27891 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:16:31 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19991207175510.0070a1ec@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> X-Sender: beauvillain@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 18:55:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Edouard Beauvillain Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Same comment as the previous mail you just got there is another one to come Edouard -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 00:21 06/12/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: > ... >L75D2 doesn't exempt those playing with screens, does it?. When 5C was >passed out, declarer knew the opponent on the other side had not been >told what 5C meant. Doesn't he have to tell her? in fact my partner was a guy! if you think he is really a girl (even after meeting him) i will offer you new glasses :-)))) our opponents were a couple : man and wife, they didn't say anything after the hand was over and we never asked to know who had misbid this will probably avoid any sexist comments about forgetting system on the list Edouard > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 19:45:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:45:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from bach.ensg.ign.fr (bach.ensg.ign.fr [195.220.92.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15686 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:45:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from pallas.ensg.ign.fr (pallas.ensg.ign.fr [172.31.40.40]) by bach.ensg.ign.fr (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA27864 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:15:29 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19991207175407.0070ca5c@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr> X-Sender: beauvillain@bach-int.ensg.ign.fr X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 18:54:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Edouard Beauvillain Subject: Re: different explanation of bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi folks, i guess that monday morning is a real bad day for me i just realise NOW that i replied that mail instead of sending it directly to the list. So now everybody can enjoy it! Edouard ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to all your contribution, i answer to this one first : At 10:06 04/12/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: >I was going to stay out of this one, but I don't understand what has >been said, so I'll put up a straw man that others can knock down. > >Edouard Beauvillain wrote: > >> 1)Australian opponents, (playing skip bids as you will discover ;-) ) >> the auction goes with no bidding from our side, >> 1NT 2C* *general inquiry >> 3D** 5C*** **5cards, good hand *** splinter >> all pass >> >> we were playing with screen so i was the only defender to know that my >RHO >> had a singletonC (i was East) and that we were defending a silly >contract >> >> do you think my partner is entitled to know what is really happening? >> if partner misdefend and we get "only" down 2 or 3 instead of down 5 >can we >> get redress? >> (I think no but i want confirmation) > >If the splinter was truly a partnership agreement, declarer must call >the TD before the opening lead to report the failure to Alert, and, when >asked to do so, explain to your partner that 5C was a splinter bid. The >failure to Alert was MI, which must be corrected at the first legal >opportunity (L75D2). Dummy will perhaps disagree with declarer about the >splinter agreement, but that doesn't matter once the opponent has been >told (perhaps needlessly) of the singleton club. I suppose ideally the >TD should confer privately with declarer and dummy to ascertain whether >there really was an agreement about the splinter before requiring that >declarer inform the opponents about it, but that's probably going too >far. > >This assumes I am correct in believing that a failure to Alert is >tantamount (sorry, David) to a mistaken explanation, which should be >made clear in L75D. > >If the splinter bid was made in error, and there was no such partnership >agreement, then declarer (awakened by partner's pass, and remembering >that there was no agreement) need not reveal his/her blunder and need >not call the TD. However, if the defense is adversely affected by the >mistake, the TD will rule MI and adjust the score unless there is >evidence that no agreement existed. Such evidence would be difficult to >provide, since there is probably nothing about this on the CC. > >If the pair wisely has system notes available that specifically say 5C >is natural in this auction, the TD should rule mistaken bid, not >mistaken explanation, table result stands. The absence of a splinter >agreement in the notes is not sufficient evidence by itself of no >agreement; so if the jump to game is not covered by the notes, the TD >should rule MI. i think my opponents didn't have any note about this particular sequence, is any body having so precise sequence written down? not sure anyway it is difficult fir a player to explain : "i have splintered, my partner forgot, so please take as many tricks as you can..." and unsporting (is this an english term?) from me to ask redress at the end of the hand because we got "only" five undertricks... even in world champ' :-)) >> >> 2)Good foreign opponents (national team) but i prefer not to name them >> the auction goes : (partner dealer) >> part RHO me LHO >> 1C 1NT 2H all pass 1NT is strong >> i intended my 2H bid as a transfer for S but forgot that this was a >natural >> weak bid with this particular partner... >> RHO is on my side of screen so he "knows" i have spades... Is LHO >authorized >> to know this also? > >No. Mistaken calls do not have to be revealed. However, the TD may rule >MI if you do not have evidence that 2H was natural by partnership >agreement. natural bid after 1minor 1NT was written on our system (it was all my fault) .... > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 20:46:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 20:46:42 +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 UAA15835 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 20:46:24 +1100 (EST) From: Martaandras@uze.net Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by agomboc.drotposta.hu with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) id 11vdfZ-0003YW-00; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:45:57 +0100 Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:46:20 +0100 (MET DST) To: Steve Willner Subject: Re: another hesitation case Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Steve actually the 10 sec rule is an obligaton only after a skip bid. As I was not present I cannot tell yu the exact length of the hesitation but in my understanding agreed probably means at least 10 seconds. There is no specific rule about LA in Hungary Best regards: Andras Steve Willner 1999.12.06. 18:11:33 -5h-kor irta: > > From: Martaandras@uze.net > > W N E S > > 1D Dbl 1Sp 4H > > Dbl P 4Sp Dbl > > P* P 5Cl P > > P Dbl all Pass > > > > * after agreed hesitation > > Would you accept the 5Cl bid? > > Did South wait the full 10 seconds after the 4S bid? (Or is that not > required in Hungary?) If a wait was required but not given, I would be > very reluctant to adjust against EW. > > In any case, I'd like to know the length of the hesitation. A second > or so seems normal tempo in this auction, but 10 s is not. We also > need to know the interpretation of LA in Hungary. > > Is it obvious that West's hesitation wasn't thinking about a business > redouble? > > Even with answers to all of the above, this seems to me a difficult > case unless the definition of LA is a strict one (a la ACBL). > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 8 21:33:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:33:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from tst.dk (www.telestyrelsen.dk [147.29.107.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15977 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:33:36 +1100 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <115201>; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:34:15 +0100 Message-Id: <99Dec8.113415cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:31:09 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Vedr.: Re: Innocent or double shot? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id VAA15980 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > It is normal [and recommended Netiquette] to quote sufficient of the previous posts so that the answer may be understood. I really have no idea what this refers to, and the original posts have expired. If anyone would like me to comment further on this please provide me with the original question and my reply referred to here.< I certainly didn't mean to break the recommended Netiquette. So please find Davids answer interspersed with the original post reposted below. Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen ---- David Stevenson wrote: Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen wrote: >Perhaps you would like to share your opinion on this one, which has caused some >debate in the Danish AC: > >Teams of four >2. division >Dealer: W, Game: All > J63 > Q8 > KQT8542 > T >AKQ7 T9 >AT6 K432 >AJ6 3 >Q95 AJ8432 > 8542 > J975 > 97 > K76 > >S W N E > 2N P 3C(1) (1) Asking >P 3D(2) D 3S(3) (2) Promising 4-card major >P 3N(4) P 4C (3) 4-card hearts >P 4D(5) P 4H(5) (4) 4-card spades >P 4S(5) P 4N(6) (5) cuebid >P 5C(7) P 6C (6) RKCB 30-41 >P P P (7) 0 or 3 aces > >The play: >1. Diamond to A >2. Club to K >3. Diamond, ruffed >4. Club >5. Club to 9 >6. Diamond, ruffed (South discards Spade 2) >7. Spade 10 - (fumble) Spade 5 - Spade 7 - Spade J > >Result: 11 tricks. TD adjusted to 12 tricks. > >Please assume inadvertent fumble (L73D1). > >Questions: > >1: What constitutes innocence in the L73F2-sense? One who does not have a very good idea what is going on. >2: Do you consider this East innocent in the L73F2-sense? Yes, certainly. >3: Do you think East is double shotting? No, why? >4: If you decide to adjust using L12C2, do you deny East redress with reference >to L73D1 (last sentence) or this WBFLC decision from Lille: "The Committee >remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by >a >normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action >that >is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of >action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')" He took a finesse in a finesse or drop situation. That is normal. It is certainly *not* irrational wild or gambling. >5: Assuming a L12C3-jurisdiction, what do you consider an equitable result? 6C making 100%. I do not care whether the fumble was inadvertent: if he was an ethical player he would have said that he had nothing to think about: if he did not he deserves anything he gets. Of course, this paragraph is unfair really - he may be ignorant rather than unethical, but he still should be taught to follow the ethics of the game. Is it not unfortunate that players can act unethically [whether intentionally or not] as South did and then people try to give them something back claiming it is a double shot? It is time we started to feel sympathy for non-offenders: penalising them is ridiculous, bad for the game, and of very dubious legality. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 9 03:00:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:00:21 +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 DAA17249 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:00:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-223.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.223]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA21406 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 17:00:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384E4D2B.79230E0C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 13:20:59 +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: Tough Call References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article <384D0CD8.CEBEECB9@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >> > > > >Sorry, insufficient information. > >You know I do not accept "no agreement" as a correct answer, > >even if it is true. > > The correct answer is "No agreement". We don't play together often, the > sequence has never come up, we have never discussed it and we play in > different clubs. When I write "No agreement" I mean "No agreement". > > What is your call? > Well, as I have already stated, the partner from Inner Mongolia can have "no agreement". The partner from another club? Maybe? But we are not talking MI here, we are talking UI. Opponents were not MI by the answer, because "no agreement" in its meaning of "we all know what it means" is not MI. Partner, who does not know what it means, gives you UI by saying he does not know. That's too bad. But it should not deter people from full disclosure. "I am not saying what I think it means because I might give UI to my partner" is MI in my book, and I hope also in yours. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 03:00:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:00:17 +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 DAA17244 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:00:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-223.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.223]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA21373 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:59:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384E47A9.F62D72BB@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 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: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19991207094906.00852210@mail.maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > > >I agree that the above hand is stronger than this one. Yet > >the above one is still only 4HCP. If you say you are > >promising 5HCP, you are lying. And if you say you promise > >4+, you are playing a forbidden system. Conclusion : you > >are not allowed to open that hand. Sorry. > > Let's add a stray jack to the second hand to make it: Qxxxxx x Qxx Jxx. I > think most people would still consider KJT9xx x T9x T9x to be a stronger > hand. But, you are saying that I can open the first, but not the second, > 2S when playing 5-11 HCP weak twos. It would seem that I am no longer able > to use my judgment in this situation (unless my judgment involves strict > adherence to a 4-3-2-1 HCP count). And, this suggests that the ACBL may > regulate what evaluation technique its player use. > Yes indeed I am saying that you are not allowed to use your judgment. If the SO, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that it wants to prevent weak openings, then it should also provide a standard by which weak openings are decided. I have once said to my friend Leo that indeed the best standard for too weak would be to ask Leo, but sadly, that rule is impossible to work, since the player at the table cannot go ask Leo. The alternative is to provide a simple standard. HCP may be crude, but they are easy and everyone knows them, even those that want to use an alternative. So please criticise the rule (and really, a minimum of 5HCP should be sufficient) but not its strict application. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 03:00:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:00:33 +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 DAA17263 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:00:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-223.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.223]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA21419 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 17:00:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384E4F99.62A21D3B@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 13:31:21 +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: BL Coup References: <3.0.1.32.19991207234144.006b08a8@pop.mindspring.com> <0ae501bf4153$3ecd5bc0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Mike Dennis wrote: > > > Is it legal/ethical to ask a question for the sole purpose of > dragging the > > opponents into a potential UI situation? > > A very good question. > No. And I would extend that to say that it is a doubtful practice to > ask an unnecesary question that *may* drag the opponents into a > potential UI situation, even if that is not the purpose. > I agree with Marv. > A weekly club partner and I decided to try weak notrumps in fourth > seat only. The most notable result was that we two old veterans, who > had been playing strong notrumps for many decades, would often > forget, and either open a strong notrump in fourth seat, or respond > to a weak notrump as if it were strong. > > Now, our CCs were in plain view on the table, plainly marked that a > 4th seat 1NT had a range of 11-13 HCP. However, opponents would > usually ask about the range unnecessarily (this was before weak > notrumps became Announceable). Now, if we were to answer orally > instead of pointing at the CC, that answer would be UI. If opener > had 16-18 HCP, the UI would constrain his ability to correct for the > error. My feeling is that everything on the CC is AI, especially > since one cannot tell whether it is a question or the answer that > awakens a player to his agreement. However, L16A says that a reply > to a question is extraneous information (evidently UI and > "extraneous information" are synonymous), so opener must continue to > forget or be accused of taking advantage of the UI. > Here Marv goes a bit far. Opponents are not asking to create UI, they are just lazy. The Laws of bridge are such that this lazyness is permitted. So I would always accept it, and I would never reply "read our CC". > Anyway, my point is that the unnecessary questioning of something > clearly shown on the CC *may* drag the opponents into a potential UI > situation, and is therefore inappropriate if not unethical. > I agree when the opponent has already read the CC, and was only asking for the benefit of creating UI. > Some BLMLers are of the opinion that one *must* create such > unnecessary UI when an opponent asks for it. I disagree. > I agree with Marv's disagreement. You are allowed to avoid giving UI to partner, but you must accept that you may be giving MI in the process. You are always threading a thin line and in normal circumstances, you should not be concerned about UI, since you should be giving only I that is already known to partner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 03:00:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:00:21 +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 DAA17245 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 03:00:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-223.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.223]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA21387 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:59:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384E47C2.6868460F@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 12:57:54 +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: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello David, our opinions are not as far apart as you might think, except on one issue : "David J. Grabiner" wrote: > > >"David J. Grabiner" wrote: > > >> At 1:06 PM +0100 12/6/99, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >Well, I don't accept you can. You are obviously playing > >4-11, and have written 5-11 on your CC in order to be > >allowed to play it. Now you are twice wrong : you are > >playing an illegal system, and covering it up by providing > >MI ! > > I don't think that this is MI. If I play 1NT as "15-17", and then open 1NT > on AQT Ax T9x AT98x, is this MI to the opponents? Many good players will > do this, because they want partner to treat this hand as a 15-count. Well, I believe it is MI, but I accept the argument that any explanation of the style 15-17 needs to be interpreted with gray borders. So I will not rule against this pair, unless the opponent has asked a second question, style "can he have 14", and received the reply "never". If he has 14, that is MI. If opponent does not ask this, I rule he has neglected his duties to protect himself. > This > is the same situation as above, except that playing 14-17 is allowed. > Which is a very great difference. If I know 4-11 is not allowed, and a CC says 5-11, then I do NOT have to ask if it can be 4, since that should be impossible. And if it turns out to be 4, I expect the TD to rule MI. > The ACBL used to have a rule that a weak 2-bid had to be at least 5 HCP; > this was changed because of an argument by Marty Bergen that it didn't make > sense to limit judgment on hands like the one above. > OK, but as long as that rule existed, I was right in not asking if it could be 4. > And whether the current situation makes sense or not, it is the ACBL's > interpretation. If an opponent opens 2S on QT98xx x xxx ?xx, with 5-11 HCP > listed on his card, and I play him for the CA rather than the CQ because I > expect to find 5 HCP, I have no recourse. The TD will not order this > player never to open a 4 HCP weak 2-bid again. > Well, again, I would rule MI, the first time already, not just order him not to do it again. > >I agree that the above hand is stronger than this one. Yet > >the above one is still only 4HCP. If you say you are > >promising 5HCP, you are lying. > > Unfortuneatly, this type of "promise" encourages weasel-wording. I agree, and I prefer to hear 15-17 and know it could be 14, than to hear 14-18 from people who really never open on 14 or 18, but want to include every possibility. 14+/18- is of course a better reply. > If you > play Flannery, for example, then the 1S response to 1H "promises five > spades" > if you are asked. However, if you hold KQJT x xxxxx xxx, you'll probably > bid 1S anyway, as you don't want to declare 1NT and don't mind playing in a > 4-3 spade fit. An honest explanation would have to be "tends to promise > five spades". And I don't mind the reply "most probably five spades, because we play Flannery". An opponent who knows Flannery (I don't) should realise that the above hand will also be bid 1Sp. As long as a system is not prohibited, I don't mind gray borders, and I don't rule MI if they are not explained as such. But when a system is prohibited, the prohibition should also count for the hand, not just the system. There is no possible way out of the dilemma's that are created otherwise. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 04:08:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 04:08:11 +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 EAA17670 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 04:08:01 +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 MAA17623 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:07:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA24884 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:08:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:08:13 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912081708.MAA24884@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: another hesitation case X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Dear Steve actually the 10 sec rule is an obligaton only after a skip bid. As several people have pointed out, I overlooked the 4H bid. I apologize for the confusion. (Really, I do proofread, yes, really, but it still doesn't prevent all mistakes. Perhaps this is a clue about why my bridge results aren't what I'd like them to be.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 04:08:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 04:08:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA17677 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 04:08:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:06:45 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991208120232.00842730@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 12:02:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <384E47C2.6868460F@village.uunet.be> References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:57 PM 12/8/99 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> The ACBL used to have a rule that a weak 2-bid had to be at least 5 HCP; >> this was changed because of an argument by Marty Bergen that it didn't make >> sense to limit judgment on hands like the one above. >> > >OK, but as long as that rule existed, I was right in not >asking if it could be 4. Quite right. But, was the rule legal: Does the ACBL have the right to create rules which prohibit the use of judgment in hand evaluation? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 04:26:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 04:26:36 +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 EAA17756 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 04:26:28 +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 MAA18351 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:26:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA24931 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:26:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:26:42 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912081726.MAA24931@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: BL Coup X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Is it legal/ethical to ask a question for the sole purpose of dragging the > opponents into a potential UI situation? We had a brief thread on this perhaps six months or a year ago. The consensus seemed to be that it was legal, but none of us wished to play this way. Now I see some people saying it is illegal after all. Which law makes it so? A _partial_ remedy would be to consider correct and proper answers to opponents' questions to be AI. (I advocate that, or at least a less restrictive form of UI as in 1975, for other reasons.) A full remedy seems to require qualification of L20F1 by a new law saying it's an offense to ask a question when there's no bridge reason for asking (and perhaps other conditions). But perhaps there's something in the current laws that I'm missing. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 05:01:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 05:01:12 +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 FAA17872 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 05:01:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA06433; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 13:00:50 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0ae501bf4153$3ecd5bc0$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19991207234144.006b08a8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:57:43 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: BL Coup Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:02 AM -0800 12/8/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >Mike Dennis wrote: >> Is it legal/ethical to ask a question for the sole purpose of >dragging the >> opponents into a potential UI situation? >No. And I would extend that to say that it is a doubtful practice to >ask an unnecesary question that *may* drag the opponents into a >potential UI situation, even if that is not the purpose. In tha case I posted a few days ago, I would have disallowed any adjustment on those grounds; I didn't mention this detail because I was interested in other issues. North opened 1NT (weak), East bid 2D (majors), South bid 2NT (alerted), and West picked up South's convention card, which had Lebensohl marked on it. West then asked North for the meaning of the bid, heard "asks me to bid clubs", and then made his own bid. West got no information from his question, and E-W tried to argue later that the ambiguous answer was UI to South. Had West asked a followup question, getting the information he supposedly wanted (for example, whether South could have a good hand with a heart stopper and be waiting to double 3H), there would have been no problem; either North would have said, "South has a club suit" (clear UI to South and MI to West), or else North would have said, "It's a relay which does not promise clubs [and may be made on...]", the correct explanation. I don't think West's asking the question was bridge-lawyering, because the question wasn't clearly unnecessary. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 05:01:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 05:01:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA17873 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 05:01:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA06420; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 13:00:49 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <384E47C2.6868460F@village.uunet.be> References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:43:47 -0500 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:57 PM +0100 12/8/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >"David J. Grabiner" wrote: >> The ACBL used to have a rule that a weak 2-bid had to be at least 5 HCP; >> this was changed because of an argument by Marty Bergen that it didn't make >> sense to limit judgment on hands like the one above. >OK, but as long as that rule existed, I was right in not >asking if it could be 4. However, the rule was explicitly changed from "cannot open on 4" to "cannot agree to open on 4." >> And whether the current situation makes sense or not, it is the ACBL's >> interpretation. If an opponent opens 2S on QT98xx x xxx ?xx, with 5-11 HCP >> listed on his card, and I play him for the CA rather than the CQ because I >> expect to find 5 HCP, I have no recourse. The TD will not order this >> player never to open a 4 HCP weak 2-bid again. >Well, again, I would rule MI, the first time already, not >just order him not to do it again. This was based on an actual hand, from about 1989 (after the new rule had been instituted). This hand was opened 2S in third seat, at my table and I think at several others. I actually did play opener for the CA, called the director because I didn't know about the new rule, and was told that the rule no longer applied and I could not get an adjustment. This is the ACBL's interpretation; a 9 HCP 1NT is abusive and is thus explicitly forbidden, while a 4 HCP weak 2-bid is part of the game and is allowed. I agree with you that this is inconsisnetedt. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 06:10:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 06:10:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA18100 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 06:10:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:10:08 -0800 Message-ID: <002801bf41af$d686bd60$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19991208120232.00842730@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:09:24 -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 Goodwin wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> The ACBL used to have a rule that a weak 2-bid had to be at least 5 HCP; > >> this was changed because of an argument by Marty Bergen that it didn't make > >> sense to limit judgment on hands like the one above. > >> > > > >OK, but as long as that rule existed, I was right in not > >asking if it could be 4. > > Quite right. But, was the rule legal: Does the ACBL have the right to > create rules which prohibit the use of judgment in hand evaluation? Nitpick: Currently they are not creating rules that *prohibit* such judgment. The rules are that one may not use conventions if judgment or agreement takes the partnership outside of the HCP limits. I want to emphasize this because many players are under the impression that one cannot open an 8-11 HCP weak notrump as a partnership agreement, or have a weak two bid range of 2-11 HCP. These are perfectly okay, but any use of a convention after such an opening is not okay. At one time the ACBL did have explicit rules about the permissible ranges of natural bids, e.g., a weak two bid could not have more than 11 HCP (later changed to 12). That was illegal, and they don't do it any more, other than for the option permitted in L40 (initial action at the one level with a king or more below average strength). For one-level calls that are not initial actions, or calls at the two level and above, no range limitation is legal unless the bid is a convention. I know you are aware of all this Tim, but maybe some others are not. Weak two bids with a range greater than 7 HCP must be Alerted, by the way. Just came across that rule in the ACBL Conventions Regulations (page 3 of 4). Didn't know that. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 06:30:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 06:30:30 +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 GAA18155 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 06:30:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:30:13 -0800 Message-ID: <003501bf41b2$a4fea840$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912081726.MAA24931@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: BL Coup Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:28:31 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > > Is it legal/ethical to ask a question for the sole purpose of dragging the > > opponents into a potential UI situation? > > We had a brief thread on this perhaps six months or a year ago. The > consensus seemed to be that it was legal, but none of us wished to play > this way. Now I see some people saying it is illegal after all. Which > law makes it so? > > A _partial_ remedy would be to consider correct and proper answers to > opponents' questions to be AI. (I advocate that, or at least a less > restrictive form of UI as in 1975, for other reasons.) At least everything on a pair's CC should be AI. How can CC contents be "extraneous information."? L16 says that using information that comes from anything other than legal calls or plays, or mannerisms of the opponents, *may* be an infraction of Law. However, information coming from partner's calls and plays includes, certainly, the partnership agreements concerning those calls, which are AI, not UI. Extending that idea to include all partnership agreements, even those not shown on the CC, is going a bit far, as there would be no readily available evidence that replies to a question do not include something unknown to partner. >A full remedy > seems to require qualification of L20F1 by a new law saying it's an > offense to ask a question when there's no bridge reason for asking (and > perhaps other conditions). But then you get into the UI created by "questions not asked." Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 06:50:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 06:50:36 +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 GAA18207 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 06:50:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:50:20 -0800 Message-ID: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 11:44:45 -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 Grabiner wrote: > This is the ACBL's interpretation; a 9 HCP 1NT is abusive and is thus > explicitly forbidden, while a 4 HCP weak 2-bid is part of the game and is > allowed. I agree with you that this is inconsistent. > Do I have this wrong? Opening a 9 HCP 1NT is not explicitly forbidden, you just can't use conventions after opening 1NT if you ever do that. Yes, inconsistent. No one has asked why the ACBL bans conventions in conjunction with extra-wide-range 1NT and weak two bid openings. It could be that some ACBL directors found such openings to be annoying, but I think the main reason may have been that players were too often fielding partner's strength. Not knowing how to prevent that, the BoD chose to discourage the practice by banning conventions in conjunction with such ranges. Just a guess. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 07:09:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 07:09:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18238 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 07:09:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:07:59 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991208150348.00853290@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 15:03:48 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <002801bf41af$d686bd60$d5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19991208120232.00842730@mail.maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:09 AM 12/8/99 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >Nitpick: Currently they are not creating rules that *prohibit* such >judgment. The rules are that one may not use conventions if judgment >or agreement takes the partnership outside of the HCP limits. I want >to emphasize this because many players are under the impression that >one cannot open an 8-11 HCP weak notrump as a partnership agreement, >or have a weak two bid range of 2-11 HCP. These are perfectly okay, >but any use of a convention after such an opening is not okay. True in the case of wide range weak two bids and wide range (or less than 10 HCP) 1NT opening bids. But, there are a number of instances on the GCC where HCP are used to ban methods, one example from the allowed section: OPENING SUIT BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating the bid suit, another known suit, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits. And, a possible natural bid in the disallowed section: Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 07:38:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 07:38:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from hopper.isi.com (hopper.isi.com [192.73.222.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18308 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 07:37:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from karma.isi.com (karma.isi.com [192.73.222.42]) by hopper.isi.com (8.8.4/8.6.10) with ESMTP id MAA06485 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:37:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwilleypc (nash-dhcp-1 [128.224.193.30]) by karma.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id MAA05522 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:33:18 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:37:47 -0800 Message-ID: <001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Marvin L. > French > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 11:45 AM > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods > > > David Grabiner wrote: > > > This is the ACBL's interpretation; a 9 HCP 1NT is abusive and is > > thus explicitly forbidden, while a 4 HCP weak 2-bid is part of the game > > and is allowed. I agree with you that this is inconsistent. > Do I have this wrong? Opening a 9 HCP 1NT is not explicitly > forbidden, you just can't use conventions after opening 1NT if you > ever do that. The ACBL's expressed goal in implementing this regulation is to make a 9 HCP 1N opening unplayable. I certainly believe that disallowing any conventional bids in any auctions following a 1N opening is a sufficient deterrent to discourage me from using the opening bid in question. I'm afraid I don't appreciate the distinction that you are trying to make. Out of curiosity, has anyone else considered simply ignoring ACBL regulations that they don't happen to like? The organization is desperate for cash. The ACBL can't get its act together well enough to effectively ban documented cheaters. I don't think that the organization would refuse to collect money over a disagreement on bidding theory. In all seriousness, civil disobedience is an extremely effective means of protest. It draws a very specific link between cause and effect. It does so in a very public manner in a way that can not be easily hushed up. What's the worst that they can do? Take away our precious master-points? Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 08:20:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 08:20:57 +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 IAA18393 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 08:20:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh9q.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.58]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA17247 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:20:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991208161740.00760b8c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 16:17:40 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: BL Coup In-Reply-To: <199912081726.MAA24931@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:26 PM 12/8/99 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> Is it legal/ethical to ask a question for the sole purpose of dragging the >> opponents into a potential UI situation? > >We had a brief thread on this perhaps six months or a year ago. The >consensus seemed to be that it was legal, but none of us wished to play >this way. Now I see some people saying it is illegal after all. Which >law makes it so? An excellent question. I can't wait to see the responses! >A _partial_ remedy would be to consider correct and proper answers to >opponents' questions to be AI. As we have both advocated in the past. But not germane to the actual problem. >A full remedy seems to require qualification of L20F1 by a new law saying it's an >offense to ask a question when there's no bridge reason for asking (and >perhaps other conditions). East _had_ a bridge reason: he wished to maximize his score by exploiting his opponents' evident confusion and the effect of L16, much as a player might alter his intended line of play to exploit a penalty card. The penalties imposed as a matter of law are part of the game, and it must be legal to tailor your tactics to their effect, even if some people find this distasteful. But in general, this proposed change has a deeper flaw. Whether it is good tactics to do so or not, asking about a potentially ambiguous call (which this surely was) can _always_ be justified in what you would agree are legitimate "bridge" terms. You may or may not have immediate tactical need of the information, but it obviously increases the chance of UI from your side to wait until the information is significant to you. Better to ask at the time of the bid, whether the information is of immediate importance or not. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 09:05:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 09:05:02 +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 JAA18509 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 09:04:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-173.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.173]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA14087; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 23:04:43 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000001bf41c8$423caac0$adb4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Law 81C11 - Please forward Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:01:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ok, for once congratulations, but knowing those of his cats should be enough. ton -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 3:55 AM Subject: Law 81C11 - Please forward > > Happy Birthday to You > Happy Birthday to You > Happy Birthday dear David > Happy Birthday to You > >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| David Stevenson's |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | Birthday |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | is on the 7th |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)181 983 5818 | December |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 09:08:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 09:08:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18535 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 09:08:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from idefix (cph43.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.43]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA26279 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 23:07:55 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199912082207.XAA26279@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 23:08:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I appreciate Flemming's efforts to solicit opinions on our decisions in the Danish National AC. This was definitely the toughest decision we have had since I joined the committee in 1995, and we were not unanimous. Flemming repeated the original posting recently. The answers below is David's > >5: Assuming a L12C3-jurisdiction, what do you consider an equitable result? > > 6C making 100%. > > I do not care whether the fumble was inadvertent: if he was an ethical > player he would have said that he had nothing to think about: if he did > not he deserves anything he gets. Of course, this paragraph is unfair > really - he may be ignorant rather than unethical, but he still should > be taught to follow the ethics of the game. Just to avoid giving you a lop-sided view of the ethics of Danish players, let me point out that there is a third possiblity regarding the fumbler's behavior: he might not be aware that he had varied his tempo, even though his partner could confirm that he had. There was no evidence that he would not have volunteered that he had nothing to think about if he had noticed that he had done something that might mislead declarer. (Hmm. Triple negative. Sorry Flemming) The final ruling did include a reminder that players can avoid problems of this kind by volunteering such information. /Jens -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 10:40:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 10:40:04 +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 KAA18753 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 10:39:56 +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 SAA02599 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 18:39:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA25523 for Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 18:40:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 18:40:09 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912082340.SAA25523@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" [what are all those strange characters?] > Now, do we really want > East to be able to choose the percentage > line, and just because of the fumble be > able to choose the anti-percentage line > too, as long as he is careful to choose > the "right" line at the table, reserving > the alternative for the replay in committee? Well, we certainly don't want NS to benefit from well-timed fumbles. The 1997 Laws go much further to prevent this than did previous versions. _There has been a genuine change in the laws,_ and our rulings should be based on the new version. Some, perhaps many, rulings would have been different prior to 1997. > Is the term "double shot" reserved for the > situation, where a player chooses an > anti-percentage line suggested by > variations in an opponents tempo or > manner, or is it applicable to a 50-50 > guess also? I thought the Lille interpretation made clear that "double-shot" refers to "irrational, wild, or gambling" actions, not to a normal bridge decision or even a normal mistake. > And what if the suggested and > chosen line is the percentage line? If there is only one line that is reasonable at the table, and it is also suggested by an opponent's fumble, then there is no damage and no adjustment. Quantitatively, "equity" in the L12C3 sense is probably something like "what the innocent player would have done with no fumble." As always, we resolve doubt in favor of non-offenders. The result may be that players whose opponents fumble do better than those whose opponents do not. That seems reasonable to me. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 11:44:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 11:44:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from tst.dk (www.telestyrelsen.dk [147.29.107.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18898 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 11:44:18 +1100 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <115201>; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:44:58 +0100 Message-Id: <99Dec9.014458cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:41:56 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA18899 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" [what are all those strange characters?] Sorry, can't help my name, it includes two non-English characters (o with a slash, sometimes translated to oe) >I thought the Lille interpretation made clear that "double-shot" refers >to "irrational, wild, or gambling" actions, not to a normal bridge >decision or even a normal mistake. Maybe I'm far out here, but would it not be a possible reading, that the Lille interpretation was needed because a double shot not always can be considered irrational, wild or gambling? That is, the interpretation tells us to consider the double shot an irrational, wild or gambling action, althoug it isn't per se. Flemming Boegh-Soerensen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 12:10:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:10:14 +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 MAA18960 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:10:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from uu212-190-24-83.unknown.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-83.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.83]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id CAA13092 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 02:09:51 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <4.1.0.67.19991209020256.0094bb30@p.pop.uunet.be> Message-Id: <4.1.0.67.19991209020256.0094bb30@p.pop.uunet.be> X-Sender: be006155@p.pop.uunet.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.67 (Beta) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 02:04:14 +0100 To: : From: Jan Boets Subject: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk change of address: janboets@vt4.be From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 12:28:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:28:05 +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 MAA19030 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:27:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from uu212-190-15-75.unknown.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-75.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.75]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id CAA13348 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 02:27:48 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <4.1.0.67.19991209022701.00955310@p.pop.uunet.be> X-Sender: be006155@p.pop.uunet.be (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1.0.67 (Beta) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 02:27:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jan Boets Subject: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk change of address: janboets@vt4.net From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 12:45:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:45:04 +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 MAA19077 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:44:56 +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 11vsdR-0004a6-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:44:46 +0000 Message-ID: <735$BOAaoqT4Ewll@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 18:57:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Tough Call In-Reply-To: <384E4D2B.79230E0C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <384E4D2B.79230E0C@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes > >"I am not saying what I think it means because I might give >UI to my partner" is MI in my book, and I hope also in >yours. > > Agreed, and if we both play in the same club I will say, ".. but in our club this bid generally means ..." Of course I do. In this case we definitely had "No agreement" chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 16:06:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:06:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA19577 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:05:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:05:47 -0800 Message-ID: <008001bf4203$0e498ea0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:01:46 -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 Richard Willey wrote: Marv wrote: > > Do I have this wrong? Opening a 9 HCP 1NT is not explicitly > > forbidden, you just can't use conventions after opening 1NT if you > > ever do that. > > The ACBL's expressed goal in implementing this regulation is to make a 9 > HCP 1N opening unplayable. > I certainly believe that disallowing any conventional bids in any > auctions following a 1N opening is a sufficient deterrent to discourage > me from using the opening bid in question. > > I'm afraid I don't appreciate the distinction that you are trying to > make. I said I was nitpicking. You are right, outlawing conventions following some natural bid is tantamount (sorry, David) to outlawing the bid. > > Out of curiosity, has anyone else considered simply ignoring ACBL > regulations that they don't happen to like? > The organization is desperate for cash. The ACBL can't get its act > together well enough to effectively ban documented cheaters. I don't > think that the organization would refuse to collect money over a > disagreement on bidding theory. Most players, even, nay, especially, pros, ignore CC regulations, and most players ignore Stop Card regulations, in effect nullifying them. If these good regs can be ignored, I don't see why the same can't be done in connection with a bad one. Go to it, Richard, Alice would never give me permission (life is full of choices, but you never get to make any). > In all seriousness, civil disobedience is an extremely effective means > of protest. > It draws a very specific link between cause and effect. > It does so in a very public manner in a way that cannot be easily > hushed up. But who will publish the actions of disobedience? Will you spread the word via rgb? Not enough readers, I'm afraid. > > What's the worst that they can do? Take away our precious > master-points? No, but they can bar you from ACBL-sponsored games, theoretically. Then you could sue, and I will be glad to testify on your behalf about the selective and discriminatory enforcement of ACBL regulations. You could also get some good BLs to argue that the regulation of natural bids in this manner is a violation of the Laws. Just think, if these regulations are okay, a ZA could enforce a certain HCP range for *every* natural bid. Hmm. I'd like to do that myself! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 17:06:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:06:38 +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 RAA19683 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:06:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 22:06:17 -0800 Message-ID: <00a701bf420b$81c97400$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <99Dec9.014458cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 22:05:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Flemming Bøegh-Sorenson > Steve Willner wrote: > > >I thought the Lille interpretation made clear that "double-shot" refers > >to "irrational, wild, or gambling" actions, not to a normal bridge > >decision or even a normal mistake. I agree, but feel that the double shot action has to be quite clearly irrational, wild, or gambling, with a merely doubtful action given the benefit of the doubt. > > Maybe I'm far out here, but would it not be a possible reading, that the > Lille interpretation was needed because a double shot not always > can be considered irrational, wild or gambling? That is, the interpretation > tells us to consider the double shot an irrational, wild or gambling > action, although it isn't per se. > This is a possible interpretation, because the reference to double shot would seem to be superfluous otherwise. However, actions that are not clearly double shots would be difficult to identify as such, and I don't believe the WBFLC wanted to get into that area. I think the double shot reference was inserted to make plain that very chancy double shot actions are grounds for annulment of redress, even if the bidder thinks the action is quite rational from his/her point of view. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 17:42:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:42:03 +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 RAA19777 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:41:55 +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 BAA23056 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:41:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id BAA20258; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:41:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:41:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. Tony (aka ac342) Matchpoints Board 15 S QJT S W N E Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D C 54 2H P P P S 9652 S K8 H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not alerted D Q63 D T982 C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS S A743 H A9852 Before the opening lead, South D 74 informed the opps that there C Q8 had been a failure to alert 2C. EW called the director. The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). Away from the table, W said that had he been properly informed, he would not have balanced; East claimed that he would have doubled clubs. The director told the players to play the hand out. After a result was obtained, EW asked the director to review the hand. The director decided: result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result had the irregularity not occured; NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. NS appealed. The committee upheld the director's ruling; there was some thought to adjusting EW to +300, but they decided to keep the result as it was. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 18:24:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:24:00 +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 SAA19859 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:23:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da403731 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:23:13 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-224-232.tmns.net.au ([139.134.224.232]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Coppertone-MailRouter V2.6h 13/974554); 09 Dec 1999 17:23:11 Message-ID: <028f01bf4216$11635720$e8e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Innocent or double shot? Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:21:53 +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 Note: Flemming's original post is included at the bottom. Flemming Bogh-Sorensen wrote: >The Danish NAC decided on a L12C3 score of >-1370 for NS, while EW got 75% of 1370 >plus 25% of -50, to be calculated on the >IMP-difference compared with the other >table. As the score on the other table was >1370, EW got -4 IMPs. > That seems to be the traditional way to calculate it: i.e. 1370 - 1015 (non-offenders) = 8 imps, and 1370 - 1370 (offenders) = 0 imps The average of 8 and 0 is 4 imps. Is it "correct"? I doubt it!! If you look at L78B, L86 and L12, it is clear that you should "average .. the two scores" (L86) = average of 1370 and 1015 i.e. 1192.5 is the score to be awarded to both contestants (= teams). The word "score" is used throughout the Laws to mean "total point score", not "IMP score" or "matchpoint score". The latter are referred to as "IMPs" and "matchpoints" respectively. So the score is 1370 - 1192.5 = 177.5, or 5 imps. Not 4 imps! The IMP scale is designed to compare two scores, not three. Comments appreciated, please. Just because many of you will assume that my above comments, intended to be logical and constructive, are from outer space, it doesn't make the rest of my post irrelevant.... >The finesse should be a 62% line as South >is known to have 8 of the 13 missing major >cards. The squeeze seems to be slightly >antipercentage. Translating my previous figures into percentages - Finesse after the fumble: 99+% - Finesse without the fumble: 61.5% (before the spade discard, but not after the discard) - Squeeze without the fumble, requires South to have been precisely 4-4 in the majors or 5-3 with HQJx, with residual chances: too hard for me to calculate. Note that declarer may have been preparing for a squeeze when he led S10....S10 to tempt the cover, rise SA (maybe dropping bare jack), cash HA and HK to check for doubleton QJ, last trump. And the squeeze makes when SJ8x is in one hand or when a defender errs (e.g. discards from S8xxx to retain HJ9xx). Yes, too hard to calculate a percentage. Note that the finesse on the other hand puts all your eggs in one basket, i.e. there's no second chance. And if declarer were a Division 1 player, he may have played differently, not ruffing DJ, but instead aiming for an ending of HAx opposite HKxx with a spade and diamond threat in dummy. When South retains a spade on the last trump, dummy pitches a spade and North is squeezed in the reds. I don't want to have to analyse the effect on the percentages of declarer's other possible lines of play caused by declarer's rejection of this line. I prefer a simple 1370 to EW. You can analyse the negative impact on the simple squeeze line caused by declarer's rejection of the double sqeeeze line, if you really want to (but please don't take me too seriously, like actually doing such calculations!). How about 1370 instead? Btw, Grattan referred to a spade discard by North. I saw no such discard. This may have contributed to our earlier conclusions. >Now, do we really want >East to be able to choose the percentage >line, and just because of the fumble be >able to choose the anti-percentage line >too, as long as he is careful to choose >the "right" line at the table, reserving >the alternative for the replay in committee? Yes. As I stated in an earlier post, South's bridge was bad. Very bad. South erred and gave East his contract. The "most favourable result that was likely" is 1370. East did nothing to avoid getting 1370. East played normally. Your statement "able to choose the anti-percentage line too" is inaccurate, because in reality East never got his 1370. He got 4 imps short of the full quid instead. East cannot choose the anti-percentage line; East does not have control over the TD or AC decisions. East did exactly what I (and hopefully you) would have done; he played normally after the fumble, and then had to hope that the AC gave him his 1370, or on a bad day only a part thereof. >......two opportunities to win - by some called a double shot? I presume you mean "one opportunity to win (SJ onside) and one opportunity to find out what the AC decides". Do you seriously believe that the day will come where AC decisions become so predictable that players will be able to anticipate the outcome? >If East is allowed both opportunities, >why do we bother the players with the >play of the rest of the hand? > Because the AC decision is not a foregone conclusion. >I think the above is valid questions. >I also think it is possible to argue >for no adjustment for East with reference >to L73D1 ("at his own risk") and the Lille >decision about double shot. Some BLMLers have seen earlier what I think of one Lille decision. In one appeal (#20), the AC asks the player why he did not deliberately make an insufficient bid, and it is still recorded thus in the write-up! Under these circumstances, it seems wrong to regard all Lille decisions as infallible. >Now, as I have seen no support from BLML >to the double shot angle, I would very much like to ask this >further question: > >Is the term "double shot" reserved for the >situation, where a player chooses an >anti-percentage line suggested by >variations in an opponents tempo or >manner, or is it applicable to a 50-50 >guess also? And what if the suggested and >chosen line is the percentage line? If it >matters, where (roughly) is the dividing >line between double shot and no double >shot? > Flemming, Didn't you answer this in your original post, where you quoted >>"....this WBFLC decision from Lille: "The Committee remarked >> that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled >>by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but >>only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling >>(which would include the type of action commonly referred to >>as a 'double shot')" So a 'double shot' is included in "irrational , wild or gambling" action. Doesn't this preclude a 50-50 play being a double shot? Doesn't it put the dividing line closer to 5-95? Peter Gill Australia. Flemming's original posting was: Teams of four 2. division Dealer: W, Game: All J63 Q8 KQT8542 T AKQ7 T9 AT6 K432 AJ6 3 Q95 AJ8432 8542 J975 97 K76 S W N E 2N P 3C(1) (1) Asking P 3D(2) D 3S(3) (2) Promising 4-card major P 3N(4) P 4C (3) 4-card hearts P 4D(5) P 4H(5) (4) 4-card spades P 4S(5) P 4N(6) (5) cuebid P 5C(7) P 6C (6) RKCB 30-41 P P P (7) 0 or 3 aces The play: 1. Diamond to A 2. Club to K 3. Diamond, ruffed 4. Club 5. Club to 9 6. Diamond, ruffed (South discards Spade 2) 7. Spade 10 - (fumble) Spade 5 - Spade 7 - Spade J Result: 11 tricks. TD adjusted to 12 tricks. Please assume inadvertent fumble (L73D1)........... From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 9 18:32:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:32:13 +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 SAA19901 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:32:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na403871 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:31:30 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-224-232.tmns.net.au ([139.134.224.232]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Interstellar-MailRouter V2.6h 13/976376); 09 Dec 1999 17:31:30 Message-ID: <02b101bf4217$3aa5f920$e8e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:30:11 +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 Steve Willner wrote: > From: "Peter Gill" >> Years of exposure to opponents playing Relay Systems means that in >> Australia, we all have become accustomed to *not asking* about the >> meaning of every alerted call. Otherwise the game collapses into a >> morass of questions and answers, perhaps 10 or 15 times in some >> auctions. > >Would "Always ask on the first round" be playable? Perhaps with the >understanding that the normal reply would be nothing more than >"Artificial and forcing" (or similar)? > Perhaps. What does "first round" mean, btw? P P P 1H = first round, or P P P 1H P 1S 2D = first round? >> *snip snip snip* >I hope this last was written in haste or maybe in jest. > My comment, which I have deleted to avoid anyone seeing it again, was written in haste, like many of my postings. Steve, the words "always automatically" should have preceded "UI" in my silly statement, fwiw. Merely thinking about those interminable Relay Sequences sometimes addles my brain. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 03:14:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:14:05 +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 DAA21756 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:13:53 +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 LAA11675 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 11:13:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA217006021; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 11:13:41 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA082896020; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 11:13:40 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 11:13:25 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Stop card 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 DAA21757 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLers, In the last ACBL Bulletin, a reader suggest to eliminate the stop card, allowing poeple often use this card to awake partner they made a skip bid. The editor's answer is that most TD would not agree. The stop card is a usefull gadget to avoid innapropriate break in tempo and poeple would be educated to use it properly. I am not one of these TD. Every week in my club (about 30 tables), I see one or two horrors related to stop card. Some players try to use it only on preempts, having an agreement to that effect with their partner. Last week I heard a player saying his partner "Why did you not use the stop card so that I see your jumpt shift ? I thought you only bid 1S." The partner said: "Sorry, I forgot." The most funny thing happenned when a player put the Stop, opened 2C, and partner alerted this as "weak". Called to table I was told this was their agreement: weak with Stop, and strong without Stop. Efficient, I told. I will play this treatment... joke... I also think the Stop card would be eliminated, and I have no in my bidding box. I think zonal organisations should enforced their regulation concerning normal break in tempo after any skip bid (stop or not), and put education effort on this. I yould appreciate your opinion before sending a letter to ACBL Bulletin editor. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 03:31:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:31:25 +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 DAA21839 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:31:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis ([131.158.186.130]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Thu, 09 Dec 1999 11:22:08 -0500 Message-ID: <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "blml" References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 11:30:08 -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: A. L. Edwards To: Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 1:41 AM Subject: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 > I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm > just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. > Tony (aka ac342) > Matchpoints > Board 15 S QJT S W N E > Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P > NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D > C 54 2H P P P > S 9652 S K8 > H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not alerted > D Q63 D T982 > C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS > S A743 > H A9852 Before the opening lead, South > D 74 informed the opps that there > C Q8 had been a failure to alert 2C. > EW called the director. > The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an > artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S > would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). > Away from the table, W said that had he been properly informed, he would not > have balanced; East claimed that he would have doubled clubs. The director > told the players to play the hand out. After a result was obtained, EW > asked the director to review the hand. The director decided: > result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result > had the irregularity not occured; > NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that > was at all probable. You have the hands reversed, I think (N is at the bottom of the diagram), and my comments are based on this. If E (W?) claims that he would have doubled clubs, then 2C is not at all likely, as the Drury bidder would not have given partner a second chance to pass the artificial bid (partner's pass of the artificial bid is AI, and it's playing a very deep game indeed to make the Drury bidder field a possible psych). E/W get the score for 2C only if both would have passed it if properly informed. The reason that we ask players what they would have done (away from the table) is to get a feel for how the MI actually altered the auction, and to help us determine what would have been likely had the infraction not occurred. If either E or W claims that they would have made a call other than pass with proper information, then 2C -3 is no longer an unfavorable result that is at all probable, since the opponents have admitted that they would have taken N/S off of the hook. So, since E(W?) claims he would have doubled clubs, we have to determine how the auction would have gone from that point. The fact that his partner would not have balanced is immaterial, as he would never have gotten the chance. The Drury bidder converts to 2H, and we now have to determine if it is at all probable that E/W find the 3C sacrifice. I don't think it likely, given the W(E?) defensive strenth in hearts, but it is possible that he could find a raise of clubs, or that E(W?) could unilaterally save after N/S return to the heart fit. We don't allow N/S to get to 3H. FWIW, my ruling on the information given is 3C -1, N/S +50. I see no reason whatsoever to split the score. > NS appealed. The committee upheld the director's ruling; there was some > thought to adjusting EW to +300, but they decided to keep the result as > it was. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 03:52:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:26:45 +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 DAA21798 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:26:31 +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 11w6OV-0002fn-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:26:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:14:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? 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 > >snip >> >> BTW, we have been updating the RGB style-guide, which includes quite a >>lot of Netiquette for bridge posting. If anyone would like to see it, I >>could post a copy here, or email them a copy. I expect it to get onto >>my Bridgepage for Pre-Millennium Eve. >> >> >You mean by 31 Dec 2000? No, that is Millennium Eve. Something followed by Eve refers to the day before [popularly, originally and correctly the evening before]. Thus Millennium Eve is the day before the new Millennium, 31 Dec 2000. Since we seem to need a name for the day the world goes totally mad because they haven't learnt to count, it seemed Pre-Millennium Eve would do. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+1 one day late] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 04:14:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 04:14:09 +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 EAA21995 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 04:14:01 +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 MAA22377 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:13:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA26075 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:14:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:14:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912091714.MAA26075@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW>Would "Always ask on the first round" be playable? Perhaps with the SW>understanding that the normal reply would be nothing more than SW>"Artificial and forcing" (or similar)? > From: "Peter Gill" > Perhaps. What does "first round" mean, btw? > P P P 1H = first round, or > P P P 1H P 1S 2D = first round? The second one, i.e. the opening bid and the next three calls. That's when competitive bidding is most likely to start and when the need to know is highest. I suppose competitive bidding is a little bit less likely after some preliminary passes, but it is still pretty likely. Also, the rule seems simpler that way. I agree that if anybody adopts such a rule, it needs to be phrased without ambiguity. > My comment, which I have deleted to avoid anyone seeing it again, > was written in haste, It's easy to do. My own record isn't what I'd like it to be, as recent messages attest. :-( From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 04:48:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 04:48:18 +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 EAA22169 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 04:48:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-22.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.22]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA17813; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:47:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004901bf426d$c59c8160$1684d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:49:16 -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 I have always chosen to accept our zonal option not to use it because I am somewhat forgetful and do not wish to be inconsistent in using it. It would seem than any action not taken eliminates an opportunity for UI. Are the opponents really to be considered so inattentive then cannot notice a jump in the level of the bidding? Perhaps they deserve whatever poor result their inattention produces, just as in any other area of the game. For myself, I will accept what poor results my forgetfulness causes me...but I do not want it to inadvertantly wound my opponents or give UI to my partner. I feel this is best accomplished by eliminating the stop card from my game. I would agree with your position. I think, however, such a change should be accompanied by education that a hesitation is required over such a bid, which many poorer players do not understand even when the card is used. Craig -----Original Message----- From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 11:28 AM Subject: Stop card >Hi BLMLers, > >In the last ACBL Bulletin, a reader suggest to eliminate the >stop card, allowing poeple often use this card to awake >partner they made a skip bid. > >The editor's answer is that most TD would not agree. The >stop card is a usefull gadget to avoid innapropriate >break in tempo and poeple would be educated to use it >properly. > >I am not one of these TD. Every week in my club (about >30 tables), I see one or two horrors related to stop card. >Some players try to use it only on preempts, having >an agreement to that effect with their partner. Last week >I heard a player saying his partner "Why did you not use >the stop card so that I see your jumpt shift ? I thought >you only bid 1S." The partner said: "Sorry, I forgot." > >The most funny thing happenned when a player put the >Stop, opened 2C, and partner alerted this as "weak". >Called to table I was told this was their agreement: >weak with Stop, and strong without Stop. Efficient, >I told. I will play this treatment... joke... > >I also think the Stop card would be eliminated, and >I have no in my bidding box. I think zonal organisations >should enforced their regulation concerning normal >break in tempo after any skip bid (stop or not), and >put education effort on this. > >I yould appreciate your opinion before sending a letter >to ACBL Bulletin editor. > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 04:57:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:26:47 +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 DAA21800 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:26:32 +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 11w6Oa-00087E-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:26:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:13:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Innocent or double shot? References: <028f01bf4216$11635720$e8e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <028f01bf4216$11635720$e8e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >Flemming Bogh-Sorensen wrote: >>The Danish NAC decided on a L12C3 score of >>-1370 for NS, while EW got 75% of 1370 >>plus 25% of -50, to be calculated on the >>IMP-difference compared with the other >>table. As the score on the other table was >>1370, EW got -4 IMPs. >That seems to be the traditional way to calculate it: >i.e. 1370 - 1015 (non-offenders) = 8 imps, >and 1370 - 1370 (offenders) = 0 imps >The average of 8 and 0 is 4 imps. > >Is it "correct"? I doubt it!! > >If you look at L78B, L86 and L12, it is clear that you should >"average .. the two scores" (L86) = average of 1370 and 1015 >i.e. 1192.5 is the score to be awarded to both contestants (= teams). >The word "score" is used throughout the Laws to mean "total point >score", not "IMP score" or "matchpoint score". The latter are referred >to as "IMPs" and "matchpoints" respectively. > >So the score is 1370 - 1192.5 = 177.5, or 5 imps. Not 4 imps! > >The IMP scale is designed to compare two scores, not three. > >Comments appreciated, please. Just because many of you >will assume that my above comments, intended to be logical >and constructive, are from outer space, it doesn't make the rest >of my post irrelevant.... I hope you like planet earth. Are you from the green planet? You calculate the imps first, not last. The IMP scale is designed to compare two real scores not two unreal ones. Other table: NS+1370 N/S here: NS-1370: 0 imps. E/W here: 75% of NS-1370: 0 imps * 75% = 0 imps. 25% of NS+50: -16 imps * 25% = 4 imps. thus E/W get -4 imps, N/S get 0 imps. **IF** it was a k/o match, that is adjudged as N/S gaining 2 imps - if it wasn't, they get different scores. If anyone wants to know why it is correct to do the imps first in L12C3 cases, I intend to demonstrate it in an article for the Australian Director's Bulletin. When I have written it I shall publish it here as well. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+1 one day late] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 05:06:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:26:49 +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 DAA21801 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:26:33 +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 11w6OV-00087z-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:26:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:48:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> In-Reply-To: <001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Marvin L. >> French >> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 11:45 AM >> To: Bridge Laws >> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods >> >> >> David Grabiner wrote: >> >> > This is the ACBL's interpretation; a 9 HCP 1NT is abusive and is >> > thus explicitly forbidden, while a 4 HCP weak 2-bid is part of the >game >> > and is allowed. I agree with you that this is inconsistent. > >> Do I have this wrong? Opening a 9 HCP 1NT is not explicitly >> forbidden, you just can't use conventions after opening 1NT if you >> ever do that. > > >The ACBL's expressed goal in implementing this regulation is to make a 9 >HCP 1N opening unplayable. >I certainly believe that disallowing any conventional bids in any >auctions following a 1N opening is a sufficient deterrent to discourage >me from using the opening bid in question. > >I'm afraid I don't appreciate the distinction that you are trying to >make. > >Out of curiosity, has anyone else considered simply ignoring ACBL >regulations that they don't happen to like? >The organization is desperate for cash. The ACBL can't get its act >together well enough to effectively ban documented cheaters. I don't >think that the organization would refuse to collect money over a >disagreement on bidding theory. > >In all seriousness, civil disobedience is an extremely effective means >of protest. >It draws a very specific link between cause and effect. >It does so in a very public manner in a way that can not be easily >hushed up. > >What's the worst that they can do? Take away our precious >master-points? I think, as with other forms of cheating, that the publicity is one of the major parts of the punishment. You are suggesting deliberately and knowledgeably going against the rules by which this game is played to gain an advantage over other people. ie cheating. I think that I should just say that you are doing this, naming you, on page 1 of the ACBL Bulletin. If I [as the ACBL] feel there is no other method but publicity, and this is not sufficient to stop you cheating, then at ever event, I would produce flyers, saying that you cheat, and describing how. I would also say, that whether there is damage or not, any opponent that reports you will get an extra 10% of a top added to their score, and 30% of a top will be deducted from yours. I shall put this in the flyer, with oyur picture. I think I may manage to stop you. Every organisation has some terrible rules. Cheating is not the answer: it would be your opponents who suffer not the organisation. I do not suppose you were serious! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+1 one day late] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 05:19:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:19:13 +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 FAA22265 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:19:04 +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 NAA03721 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:18:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id NAA07537; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:18:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:18:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199912091818.NAA07537@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm >> just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. >> Tony (aka ac342) >> Matchpoints >> Board 15 S QJT S W N E >> Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P >> NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D >> C 54 2H P P P >> S 9652 S K8 >> H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not >alerted >> D Q63 D T982 >> C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS >> S A743 >> H A9852 Before the opening lead, >South >> D 74 informed the opps that there >> C Q8 had been a failure to alert >2C. >> EW called the director. >> The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an >> artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S >> would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). >> Away from the table, W said that had he been properly informed, he would >not >> have balanced; East claimed that he would have doubled clubs. The director >> told the players to play the hand out. After a result was obtained, EW >> asked the director to review the hand. The director decided: >> result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result >> had the irregularity not occured; >> NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that >> was at all probable. > >You have the hands reversed, I think (N is at the bottom of the diagram), >and my comments are based on this. If E (W?) claims that he would have >doubled clubs, then 2C is not at all likely, as the Drury bidder would >not have given partner a second chance to pass the artificial bid (partner's >pass of the artificial bid is AI, and it's playing a very deep game indeed >to make the Drury bidder field a possible psych). E/W get the score for 2C >only if both would have passed it if properly informed. Actually, the hand is *not* reversed. South did pass; North, despite playing 2/1 with 5card majors, elected to open 1H with JT73; 2C was reverse drury, not alerted. I can understand the confusion. :-) It didn't help when I made a mistake in the write-up (thanks, Kojak, for pointing it out). Please correct the phrase: " Away from the table, EAST (not W) said that had he been properly informed, he would not have balanced (with his T982); WEST (not E) claimed he would have doubled clubs (with his AKJ932). Sorry for all the confusion. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 05:40:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:40:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp04.nwnexus.com (smtp04.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA22359 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:40:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by smtp04.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA00746; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 10:40:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by coho.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA04873; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 10:40:20 -0800 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 10:40:18 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Stop card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > In the last ACBL Bulletin, a reader suggest to eliminate the stop card, > allowing people often use this card to awake partner they made a skip > bid. I doubt seriously that any modestly experienced player does this - that is c****ing! If one hasn't played enough to know this, he can be taught, and if he does know it, well.... the jails are not all full yet! > The editor's answer is that most TD would not agree. The stop card is a > useful gadget to avoid inappropriate breaks in tempo and people should > be educated to use it properly. The bigger problem is that bridge players generally don't know/care about their responsibilities after a skip-bid. ACBL requires maintaining proper tempo after one [i. e., "10 sec." pause] whether stop card used or NOT!. If everyone knew/followed that, there might be some reason to do away with the card. But then they would just do something else to negate its usefulness. I had an experienced lady player in Boston last month do this - I put the stop card on the table, and she fixed her eyes on mine, as if to say, 'Hurry up and remove that f-ing card!' Of course everyone at the table noticed, and knew she didn't have anything to think about!! So, I decided to see whether or not she would act if I didn't remove the card, and left it out there for a good 30 seconds. The glare never waivered, in spite of the fact that I glared right back at her eyes. She is required to bid in tempo even if the card is not removed, of course, but that made no difference to her. She wanted to make sure her partner knew she had nothing, and as soon as I made a move [finally] shewas ready, and sprang to grab the pass card and got it out there before I could even get the stop card back in the box! So what do you do? Call the TDs every time someone fails to follow the required procedure of studying one's hand intently for an appropriate period? Try to educate the entire bridge population yourself, one by one? And the TD crew too -- lots of them don't even know the regs on this! > I think zonal organisations should enforced their regulation concerning > normal break in tempo after any skip bid (stop or not), and put > education effort on this. They can't even get the players to use the alert strip when making announcements and alerts, as required, in spite of putting articles in the Daily Bulletins at NABCs! What hope is there for educating on the stop card? I doubt they will even publish the letter you send them. Richard B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 05:46:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:46:11 +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 FAA22379 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:46:02 +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 11w8ZZ-0006Dx-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:45:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:09:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Logical alternative MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It may be that some places will change their definitions of this with the promulgation of the WBF CoP. However, it has been suggested to me that it is time we reviewed what is the basis in various parts of the world. In my view, players of similar ability playing similar methods are considered: an LA is a call or play that: GBritain At least three out of ten would choose Denmark and Sweden More than an insignificant minority would choose ACBL and the Netherlands A number would at least consider seriously Rest of the World At least one out of four would choose Please let me know whether you feel this is correct for your country. The more the merrier! Note that the new CoP wording is: A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+1 one day late] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 05:46:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA22390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:46:11 +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 FAA22380 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:46:03 +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 11w8ZZ-0003vk-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:45:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:00:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Stop card References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: >In the last ACBL Bulletin, a reader suggest to eliminate the >stop card, allowing poeple often use this card to awake >partner they made a skip bid. > >The editor's answer is that most TD would not agree. The >stop card is a usefull gadget to avoid innapropriate >break in tempo and poeple would be educated to use it >properly. > >I am not one of these TD. Every week in my club (about >30 tables), I see one or two horrors related to stop card. >Some players try to use it only on preempts, having >an agreement to that effect with their partner. Last week >I heard a player saying his partner "Why did you not use >the stop card so that I see your jumpt shift ? I thought >you only bid 1S." The partner said: "Sorry, I forgot." > >The most funny thing happenned when a player put the >Stop, opened 2C, and partner alerted this as "weak". >Called to table I was told this was their agreement: >weak with Stop, and strong without Stop. Efficient, >I told. I will play this treatment... joke... > >I also think the Stop card would be eliminated, and >I have no in my bidding box. I think zonal organisations >should enforced their regulation concerning normal >break in tempo after any skip bid (stop or not), and >put education effort on this. > >I yould appreciate your opinion before sending a letter >to ACBL Bulletin editor. In my view the ACBL need to get it right somehow. One of the reasons I find what you are saying so difficult is that over here the players are required to use the stop card, leave it out until some time has past, and not bid before it is removed nor before a reasonable time has elapsed. I would guess the percentages at club and serious event level were as follows: Club Event People who use the stop card before any jump bid 92% 99% before nearly any jump bid 4% 1% only before weak bids 0% 0% People who keep it out for the full ten seconds 15% 50% for a bit longer than their bid 25% 25% People who wait for it to be removed before bidding 60% 90% People who wait for ten seconds even if the card disappears prematurely 20% 40% As a result it is helpful and useful. I believe it can be in the ACBL but that there needs to be an effort to get it used right and consistently. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+1 one day late] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 05:58:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:26:48 +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 DAA21799 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:26:31 +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 11w6OV-0002fo-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:26:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:17:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? References: <99Dec8.015124cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> In-Reply-To: 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 DAA21808 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen wrote originally: [thanks to Anne Jones for emailing this to me] >Perhaps you would like to share your opinion on this one, which has caused >some debate in the Danish AC: > >Teams of four >2. division >Dealer: W, Game: All > > J63 > Q8 > KQT8542 > T >AKQ7 T9 >AT6 K432 >AJ6 3 >Q95 AJ8432 > 8542 > J975 > 97 > K76 > >S W N E > 2N P 3C(1) (1) Asking >P 3D(2) D 3S(3) (2) Promising 4-card major >P 3N(4) P 4C (3) 4-card hearts >P 4D(5) P 4H(5) (4) 4-card spades >P 4S(5) P 4N(6) (5) cuebid >P 5C(7) P 6C (6) RKCB 30-41 >P P P (7) 0 or 3 aces > >The play: >1. Diamond to A >2. Club to K >3. Diamond, ruffed >4. Club >5. Club to 9 >6. Diamond, ruffed (South discards Spade 2) >7. Spade 10 - (fumble) Spade 5 - Spade 7 - Spade J > >Result: 11 tricks. TD adjusted to 12 tricks. > >Please assume inadvertent fumble (L73D1). > >Questions: > >1: What constitutes innocence in the L73F2-sense? >2: Do you consider this East innocent in the L73F2-sense? >3: Do you think East is double shotting? >4: If you decide to adjust using L12C2, do you deny East redress with >reference to L73D1 (last sentence) or this WBFLC decision from Lille: "The >Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not >annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only >by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would >include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')" >5: Assuming a L12C3-jurisdiction, what do you consider an equitable result? David Stevenson answered >Questions: > >1: What constitutes innocence in the L73F2-sense? One who does not have a very good idea what is going on. >2: Do you consider this East innocent in the L73F2-sense? Yes, certainly. >3: Do you think East is double shotting? No, why? >4: If you decide to adjust using L12C2, do you deny East redress with reference >to L73D1 (last sentence) or this WBFLC decision from Lille: "The Committee >remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by >a >normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action >that >is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of >action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')" He took a finesse in a finesse or drop situation. That is normal. It is certainly *not* irrational wild or gambling. >5: Assuming a L12C3-jurisdiction, what do you consider an equitable result? 6C making 100%. I do not care whether the fumble was inadvertent: if he was an ethical player he would have said that he had nothing to think about: if he did not he deserves anything he gets. Of course, this paragraph is unfair really - he may be ignorant rather than unethical, but he still should be taught to follow the ethics of the game. Is it not unfortunate that players can act unethically [whether intentionally or not] as South did and then people try to give them something back claiming it is a double shot? It is time we started to feel sympathy for non-offenders: penalising them is ridiculous, bad for the game, and of very dubious legality. Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen wrote: >I had planned to follow up on this thread >sooner, but a hurricane left me with no >electricity for a couple of days. Now I'm >back on-line. > >The Danish NAC decided on a L12C3 score of >-1370 for NS, while EW got 75% of 1370 >plus 25% of -50, to be calculated on the >IMP-difference compared with the other >table. As the score on the other table was >1370, EW got -4 IMPs. > >As a member of the NAC I am glad to see >Grattan Endicott recommend this approach, >and Steve Willner admitting he could be >persuaded into a rouling along these >lines. > >However, Peter Gill and David Stevenson >would have given EW full compensation, and David even asks, why I ask the >question >about a possible double shot. I think >Jesper Dybdal has indicated part of the >reason for this question already, but I >would like to add this possible reason: > >The finesse should be a 62% line as South >is known to have 8 of the 13 missing major >cards. The squeeze seems to be slightly >antipercentage. Now, do we really want >East to be able to choose the percentage >line, and just because of the fumble be >able to choose the anti-percentage line >too, as long as he is careful to choose >the "right" line at the table, reserving >the alternative for the replay in committee? Isn't this horrible? We are assuming that East thinks this way - why? Is he a Bridge Lawyer? Why should he not be an honest bridge player who just follows the rules of the game? >Or do we want him to make his choice, >basing this choice on the fumble if he so >wishes, but making him stick to that >choice instead of giving him two opportunities to win - by some called a >double shot? No, I would prefer that we play Bridge according to the Laws, not basing it on an assumption that perfectly ordinary bridge players are rogues. >If East is allowed both opportunities, >why do we bother the players with the >play of the rest of the hand? Perhaps because we are here to play bridge? If you don't like the Laws of bridge, change them. Otherwise you should apply them. >I think the above is valid questions. >I also think it is possible to argue >for no adjustment for East with reference >to L73D1 ("at his own risk") and the Lille >decision about double shot. I think this sort of attitude will make the game very nasty. We have a perfectly normal interpretation of the laws: "at his own risk" means that if someone breaks tempo for a perfectly valid reason, and his opponent misguesses what the reason is then there is no redress. >Now, as I have seen no support from BLML >to the double shot angle, I would very much like to ask this further question: > >Is the term "double shot" reserved for the >situation, where a player chooses an >anti-percentage line suggested by >variations in an opponents tempo or >manner, or is it applicable to a 50-50 >guess also? And what if the suggested and >chosen line is the percentage line? If it >matters, where (roughly) is the dividing >line between double shot and no double >shot? The "double shot" is a layman's reference to a situation where a player takes an action to gain advantage in a way that is not permitted by the Laws, hoping to gain from a ruling. Some people also ascribe it to a person who has been perfectly ethical, has done nothing wrong whatever, but because of the vagaries of Bridge Law, has been in a position where he gets two chances to gain. People who have taken a "double shot" in this latter sense include 100% of all competitive bridge players, which does not make all of them unethical. [Just think of the times you have called the TD over a hesitation, and have then called him back at the end for redress: do you always call him back to adjust when you have got a good score? No? You are a double-shotter!]. What we are required to do is to apply the Laws, not to make up Laws because we see some situation as a potential gain for a non-offending player and we don't like that. There is a growing feeling in NAmerica that non-offenders should suffer as well as offenders: I hope this disease is not spreading. If you have two ways to play a hand, let us say line A which is 40%, line B which is 60%, and an opponent does something that guarantees line A to work [unless he has misled you or you have understood] you are entitled **BY THE LAWS** to take Line A. L16 says: Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information .... from mannerisms of opponents. If the opponent has misled you, then he has failed to follow L73D1: 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. Players who hesitate in the play with nothing to think about and knowing it is critical have failed to exhibit the proper level of care required by the second sentence of L73D1: note there is no question of intent: they have failed whether they did so intentionally or otherwise. L73F2 then applies: When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent: 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). There is still a requirement for damage as a result. The Laws do not contain the words "double shot" nor is there any reason for them to do so since all players gain from the double shot from time to time and it is acceptable that they should do so. What the Laws do is lay down a procedure together with interpretation by which the damage needs to be consequent on the infraction. "... violation ... results in damage". The interpretation we use is that a player whose actions are deemed to be "irrational, wild or gambling" has snapped the causal link, ie his score is deemed to be because of the irrational, wild or gambling action rather than the infraction. It is not satisfactory that TDs or ACs or even NAs should use their own feelings about the double shot - they should use this wording laid down by the WBFLC. The action to be taken in such a case has been laid down in the WBFCoP: If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. So, if in the example we started with, running the S10 is considered irrational, wild or gambling, we would give E/W 6C-1, and N/S 6C=. However, it clearly isn't! Once there is a fumble from the left, whatever that means, the spade finesse is a better percentage than the squeeze. So this whole business does not come into play, and to make a ruling that splits the score in this way would be most unsuitable. The only reason I can think of for your whole posting, Flemming, is that you are suggesting it is wrong to take advantage of opponent's mannerisms. Obviously, if you do, and they have misled you, there will be rulings under L73F2. If you do not like that as a principle, then you are going against the Laws, which permit it. Of course, once you have decided that there was consequent damage, you adjust, and under L12C3 you may give a weighted score. That does not interest me. I would probably have given 100% of 6C=, but 75% of 6C=, 25% of 6C-1 is perfectly acceptable, and I have no difficulties with that. I thus consider he Danish NAC was wrong, since there was no case for a split score: they have decided that declarer's actions in taking a superior line were irrational, wild or gambling. In my view the Danish NAC has misunderstood the Laws in this area rather than that their judgement is flawed. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 06:55:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA22521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 06:39:48 +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 GAA22516 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 06:39:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from hdavis ([131.158.186.130]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Thu, 09 Dec 1999 14:31:23 -0500 Message-ID: <000c01bf427b$fa005680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199912091818.NAA07537@freenet3.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:31:19 -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: A. L. Edwards To: Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 1:18 PM Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 > >> I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm > >> just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. > >> Tony (aka ac342) > >> Matchpoints > >> Board 15 S QJT S W N E > >> Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P > >> NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D > >> C 54 2H P P P > >> S 9652 S K8 > >> H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not > >alerted > >> D Q63 D T982 > >> C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS > >> S A743 > >> H A9852 Before the opening lead, > >South > >> D 74 informed the opps that there > >> C Q8 had been a failure to alert > >2C. > >> EW called the director. > >> The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an > >> artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S > >> would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). > >> Away from the table, W said that had he been properly informed, he would > >not > >> have balanced; East claimed that he would have doubled clubs. The director > >> told the players to play the hand out. After a result was obtained, EW > >> asked the director to review the hand. The director decided: > >> result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result > >> had the irregularity not occured; > >> NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that > >> was at all probable. > > > >You have the hands reversed, I think (N is at the bottom of the diagram), > >and my comments are based on this. If E (W?) claims that he would have > >doubled clubs, then 2C is not at all likely, as the Drury bidder would > >not have given partner a second chance to pass the artificial bid (partner's > >pass of the artificial bid is AI, and it's playing a very deep game indeed > >to make the Drury bidder field a possible psych). E/W get the score for 2C > >only if both would have passed it if properly informed. > > Actually, the hand is *not* reversed. South did pass; North, despite playing > 2/1 with 5card majors, elected to open 1H with JT73; 2C was reverse drury, > not alerted. I can understand the confusion. :-) It didn't help when > I made a mistake in the write-up (thanks, Kojak, for pointing it out). > Please correct the phrase: " Away from the table, EAST (not W) said that > had he been properly informed, he would not have balanced (with his T982); > WEST (not E) claimed he would have doubled clubs (with his AKJ932). > Sorry for all the confusion. > Tony (aka ac342) > > Thanks for clearing that up. In any event, I think my comments still apply. If W would have doubled 2C, then E would not have been in the position to balance. Either N or more probably S would convert back to 2H, so the likely contracts are 2H by N +3 or 3C by W -1. Looking at L12C2: "2. Assigned Score When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing." It's clear that 3C is the most favorable result that was likely for the non-offenders had the irregularity not occurred. W has indicated that he would double 2C, so 2C will not be passed out (ruling out the -300). 3C by W -1 is the E/W score. The question is: Do we discount W's statement that he would have doubled 2C, and allow 2C undoubled to stand as the most unfavorable result that was at all probable? I think not. If W would have doubled, 2C was not at all probable. So, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for the offending side, based on the information you collected at the table, is once again 3C by W -1, which is the N/S score. I still don't see a need for a split score, unless we do not use the statement by W in determining the probable results for the offending side (in which case N/S would be -300). Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 07:09:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:09:05 +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 HAA22594 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:08:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:08:47 -0800 Message-ID: <00c701bf4281$34cc93a0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:08:40 -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 won't add my opinion on this matter, which I have expressed often before. I would like to point out that regulations can be enforced when there is a desire to do so. Just look at the Zero Tolerance regulation. It is recited by TDs before the start of most regional and NABC sessions, and it is enforced (at leasst here in Southern California). Except for some influential pros who seem to be exempt (why would a pro excoriate a client??), ZT seems to be working okay. Marv (Marvin L. French) From: Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin > On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > > In the last ACBL Bulletin, a reader suggest to eliminate the stop card, > > allowing people often use this card to awake partner they made a skip > > bid. > > I doubt seriously that any modestly experienced player does this - that is > c****ing! If one hasn't played enough to know this, he can be taught, and > if he does know it, well.... the jails are not all full yet! > > > The editor's answer is that most TD would not agree. The stop card is a > > useful gadget to avoid inappropriate breaks in tempo and people should > > be educated to use it properly. > > The bigger problem is that bridge players generally don't know/care about > their responsibilities after a skip-bid. ACBL requires maintaining proper > tempo after one [i. e., "10 sec." pause] whether stop card used or NOT!. > If everyone knew/followed that, there might be some reason to do away with > the card. > > But then they would just do something else to negate its usefulness. I had > an experienced lady player in Boston last month do this - I put the stop > card on the table, and she fixed her eyes on mine, as if to say, 'Hurry up > and remove that f-ing card!' Of course everyone at the table noticed, and > knew she didn't have anything to think about!! > > So, I decided to see whether or not she would act if I didn't remove the > card, and left it out there for a good 30 seconds. The glare never > waivered, in spite of the fact that I glared right back at her eyes. She is > required to bid in tempo even if the card is not removed, of course, but > that made no difference to her. She wanted to make sure her partner knew > she had nothing, and as soon as I made a move [finally] shewas ready, and > sprang to grab the pass card and got it out there before I could even get > the stop card back in the box! > > So what do you do? Call the TDs every time someone fails to follow the > required procedure of studying one's hand intently for an appropriate > period? Try to educate the entire bridge population yourself, one by one? > And the TD crew too -- lots of them don't even know the regs on this! > > > I think zonal organisations should enforced their regulation concerning > > normal break in tempo after any skip bid (stop or not), and put > > education effort on this. > > They can't even get the players to use the alert strip when making > announcements and alerts, as required, in spite of putting articles in the > Daily Bulletins at NABCs! What hope is there for educating on the stop > card? I doubt they will even publish the letter you send them. > > Richard B. Odlin > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 07:22:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:22:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.128.1.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22667 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:21:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from c1g6y1 (h005004d3d4f0.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.135.77]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA21337 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:21:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:23:25 -0500 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >You are suggesting deliberately and knowledgeably going against the >rules by which this game is played to gain an advantage over other >people. ie cheating. Yes and no I am certainly suggesting violating the rules by which the game is played. However, my motivation is NOT to gain an advantage over other players. I am however, very much motivated by a desire to protest the convention licensing system in use by the ACBL. When I am in a charitable mood, I describe the current system in use by the ACBL using expressions like "Byzantine", "poorly conceived", and "inefficient". However, I more often use expressions such as "corrupt" and "bribery". The convention regulation process here in the US is done by an extremely small group of people. There is little if any opportunity for the rank and file membership to affect the process. However, strange loopholes which allow the pet methods of prominent board members always seem to work their way into the rules. The "Woodson Two-Way NT" and the "Piltch Defense" over NT openings are the two best examples that spring to mind. The Dynamic NT opening is, of course, another interesting convention in this same category. >I think that I should just say that you are doing >this, naming you, on page 1 of the ACBL Bulletin. If I [as the >ACBL] feel there is no other method but publicity, and this is not >sufficient to stop you cheating, then at ever event, I would produce >flyers, saying that you cheat, and describing how. I would also >say, that whether there is damage or not, any opponent that reports >you will get an extra 10% of a top added to their score, and 30% of >a top will be deducted from yours. I shall put this in the flyer, >with your picture. I'm not sure that you understand my position. I want to publicize this entire affair in as prominent a manner as possible. The entire reason to violate the rules is to attempt to provoke just this type reaction from the authorities. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOFAPhYTdEsmh1UfJEQLhGQCgrEPxKjIm/0ZnIoFbjnvHDKkGnYwAn3qs hThNo44I/6Kx2uKnjj0WBVNS =QPWy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 08:14:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:14:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (fb01.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22823 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:14:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegj4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.100]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA21045 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:14:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991209161127.0076fcfc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 16:11:27 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Stop card In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:13 AM 12/9/99 -0500, Laval wrote: >I yould appreciate your opinion before sending a letter >to ACBL Bulletin editor. > In club games, the Stop Card serves no obvious purpose, and does create confusion and potential for abuse. In my experience as the level of competition improves, so does the appropriate use of the Stop Card and its value in terms of its intended purpose. Despite the problems and the lack of any immediate utility to the game at low levels, I think the card does have a worthwhile educational function, and I suspect that the increased proper usage in more serious venues reflects a sort of percolating upward effect, so I would not ban its use. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 08:26:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:26:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from server05.gw.total-web.net (qmailr@server05.gw.total-web.net [209.187.140.176]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA22863 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:26:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 2916 invoked from network); 9 Dec 1999 21:25:21 -0000 Received: from ip-014-202.gw.total-web.net (HELO Bill) (209.186.14.202) by server05.gw.total-web.net with SMTP; 9 Dec 1999 21:25:21 -0000 Message-ID: <02cd01bf428b$57e25000$ca0ebad1@gw.totalweb.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <028f01bf4216$11635720$e8e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Fw: Innocent or double shot? Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:21:22 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 11:13 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Innocent or double shot? > You calculate the imps first, not last. The IMP scale is designed to > compare two real scores not two unreal ones. > How do you reconcile this with Imp Pairs scored under Butler scoring? Cheers......................./Bill Bickford > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > Emails received on birthday: > Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+1 one day late] > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 09:03:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:03:48 +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 JAA22993 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:03:40 +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 <19991209220326.LYBS7162.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:03:26 -0800 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: Stop card Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:00:13 -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: <004901bf426d$c59c8160$1684d9ce@oemcomputer> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is this not what Procedural Penalties are designed for? How many 1/4 board penalties do you think it would take to get people to straighten up? There are a million things - mandate the use of the Stop Card, mandate Convention Card regulations, just to name a couple that spring to mind immediately that would be easy. Craig, I bet even you, after losing 3 boards in a session, would learn to follow the procedure. If you choose to abandon the game rather than comply, then perhaps that is the best solution for everyone. In my opinion, chaos is worse. Whenever I advance this theory I get told, "but everyone will stop playing because you are so mean!" Bah, humbug! I was in a meeting and a very prominent player made a good point: Bridge will never gain acceptance as a serious sport because the way we conduct ourselves makes us the laughingstock of the serious sports world. I know he is right when it comes to golf. The integrity of that sport is off the chart compared to ours. Do all the little old ladies quit playing golf because they get a 2 stroke penalty when their ball moves? Period.? No - They take the penalty because that is a Rule of The Game - and not only that, they are REQUIRED to call the penalty on themselves, or they are DISQUALIFIED from the event they are playing in. And they probably paid $50 for their four-hour session - not the $5-$10 we typically play. I'd love to see that penalty in bridge. It just boggles my mind that this is the only game I know of that I can play that I don't even need to bother learning the rules. Bridge's problems are much more serious than whether or not we have a Stop Card. Linda > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Craig Senior > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 9:49 AM > To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Stop card > > > I have always chosen to accept our zonal option not to use it because I am > somewhat forgetful and do not wish to be inconsistent in using > it. It would > seem than any action not taken eliminates an opportunity for UI. Are the > opponents really to be considered so inattentive then cannot notice a jump > in the level of the bidding? Perhaps they deserve whatever poor > result their > inattention produces, just as in any other area of the game. For myself, I > will accept what poor results my forgetfulness causes me...but I > do not want > it to inadvertantly wound my opponents or give UI to my partner. > I feel this > is best accomplished by eliminating the stop card from my game. I would > agree with your position. I think, however, such a change should be > accompanied by education that a hesitation is required over such a bid, > which many poorer players do not understand even when the card is used. > > Craig > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 09:20:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:20:46 +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 JAA23056 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:20:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27560; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:20:17 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:12:22 -0500 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Stop card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:00 PM +0000 12/9/99, David Stevenson wrote: > In my view the ACBL need to get it right somehow. One of the reasons >I find what you are saying so difficult is that over here the players >are required to use the stop card, leave it out until some time has >past, and not bid before it is removed nor before a reasonable time has >elapsed. > I would guess the percentages at club and serious event level were as >follows: > Club Event >People who use the stop card > before any jump bid 92% 99% > before nearly any jump bid 4% 1% > only before weak bids 0% 0% In the US, even players who do use the stop card rarely use it later in the auction; it's very rare to see someone pull the stop card on an auction like 1S-3S-4NT, or ...-4NT-5H-6S, or even 1NT-3NT. I do use it, but few players honor it on an auction like 1NT-3NT on which it is very rare for anyone to bid. What is the situation in the rest of the world? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 09:30:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:30:46 +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 JAA23099 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:30:38 +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 <19991209223030.MMBA7162.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:30:30 -0800 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: Stop card Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:27:17 -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: <3.0.1.32.19991209161127.0076fcfc@pop.mindspring.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maybe I am just cranky because I have just about finished wading my way through the 56 appeals we had at the Boston NABC. Tempo 25 Other UI 9 MI 15 Misc 7 *ugh* ALthough I am not surprised. Whenever two (and at this tournament it was usually more than two) of the five player comfort variables (table space, lighting, ventilation, temperature, noise level) are violated, we have very cranky (understandably) players - I am finding this correlated to the number of appeals we end up with. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 10:10:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:10:07 +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 KAA23231 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:09:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:09:44 -0800 Message-ID: <00f001bf429a$7bf34300$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:03:47 -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 A. L. Edwards wrote: > I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm > just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. > Tony (aka ac342) > Matchpoints > Board 15 S QJT S W N E > Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P > NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D > C 54 2H P P P > S 9652 S K8 > H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not alerted > D Q63 D T982 > C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS > S A743 > H A9852 Before the opening lead, South > D 74 informed the opps that there > C Q8 had been a failure to alert 2C. > EW called the director. > The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an > artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S > would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). > Away from the table, W said that had he been properly informed, he would not > have balanced; East claimed that he would have doubled clubs. The director > told the players to play the hand out. At this point it is too late for E/W to change their calls, so no point in taking people away from the table, wasting time, to ask what they would have done absent the MI. This was discussed in a previous thread. The directions seem to be messed up, but that doesn't matter. Let's assume, per the diagram, that North opened a 4-card major, South bid 2C Drury, West passed with the long clubs, and East reopened with 2D. > After a result was obtained, EW > asked the director to review the hand. The director decided: > result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result > had the irregularity not occured; > NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that > was at all probable. > NS appealed. The committee upheld the director's ruling; there was some > thought to adjusting EW to +300, but they decided to keep the result as> it was. > This case is much more complicated than I thought it would be at first. We are missing some elements of the story, one of which is the status of the N-S CC. The ACBL CC has a pre-printed place for disclosing the use of Drury, with three red boxes to check: Reverse, 2-way, or Fit, three versions of Drury. Was that in use, two CCs in plain view on the table? We also don't know whether East or West, or both, were inexperienced, possibly important. E-W have been misinformed, and if East had known that 2C was Drury it is not unlikely that he would have passed instead of bidding 2D. One might say, "But if 2C had been properly Alerted, hence no infraction, the 2H contract would have been perfectly normal." That is not the way to look at it. The TD/AC should rule/decide on the basis of what would have happened if East and West had known that 2C was Drury, with that knowledge somehow provided (e.g., behind a screen) without North's involvement. For an experienced East, if he knew 2C was Drury (assuming the N-S CC plainly shows that), there was no MI for him. Even if he didn't know for sure, the 2D bid might be considered to be an irrational double shot. East might have felt that there would be redress if 2C was Drury and the 2D bid didn't work out as well as a pass. If so, the 2D bid was sort of crazy because 2C would surely not be a a good contract for N-S. The TD/AC must sort this out, and could possibly decide either that there was no damaging MI, result stands, or there was damage, adjusted score for N/S, but no redress for E-W. For an East who did not know 2C was Drury (maybe the CC was not marked right, or not in view, or East is rather inexperienced), the 2D bid would not be likely he had he known the meaning of 2C. That would mean the MI caused damage, and a score adjustment can be considered. But we have to consider West, not just East. One would think that West would not double 2C, whether or not he was aware that it was Drury. If it was natural, West is delighted. If Drury, it would be stupid to possibly straighten out a misunderstanding by asking about the bid and/or by doubling. In fact a double would have led to a 2H bid by South. Then a possible 3C bid by West must be considered, quite logical if East is known to be short in spades. That would be only -50 for E-W, a good score. Or would the vulnerable South go on to 3H, despite "knowing" (according to Drury, which South must assume) that North is below strength. Determining all this takes a lot of time. When the TD took West away from the table and asked what he would have done in the absence of the infraction, he said he would have doubled 2C if he had been "properly informed," which would be via an Alert. Of course he would have doubled in that case, but quite possibly would not double if he knew 2C was Drury and also knew that North was unaware of this. TheTD practice of taking players away from the table for off-the-cuff answers, when it is too late for them to change a call, is grossly inappropriate, and this case is a good illustration of why that is so. Players often need time to think out the situation before deciding what they might have done. They may be unsure, or give an answer without sufficient thought, or give a possibly biased answer that cannot be given any weight. In any case, if the TD feels that input from the players is necessary, that should take place at a later time. TDs also need time for framing questions they feel is necessary, as this one probably asked the wrong question. The right questions for West, if questions must be asked, are: "Did you know that two clubs was Drury, even though it was not Alerted?" If the answer is yes, West had no MI, sit him down. Assuming the answer is negative, then: "Is there a fair chance that you would you have passed an unAlerted two clubs if you had known it was Drury?" I bet the answer would have been yes. Few players would be so stupid as to help N-S straighten out their misunderstanding. Note that it is not necessary that West would definitely have passed 2C, only that a pass would not be unlikely, for the TD to judge that there was possible damage. But we need another question if West says he probably would have doubled a known Drury 2C, Alerted or not. "Is there a fair chance that you would have bid 3C if South ran to 2H after you doubled?" If the answer is yes, and it is believed (it should be), then it must be decided whether a 3H bid by the vulnerable South, opposite a known (per Drury) under-strength opening, would be probable (without asking South!). If not, +50 for N/S, -50 for E/W. If so, no damage, result stands With the facts given, and not knowing some of the information that is needed, it looks like N/S should be assigned a score of -300 for 2C down three. E-W don't seem to have done anything so irrational as to annul redress, so E-W get +300, since a mere +200 in defense of 2C is not very likely. Marv (Marvin L. French) Who is not a TD From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 10:10:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:10:00 +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 KAA23225 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:09:50 +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 SAA16853 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:09:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA26430 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:10:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:10:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912092310.SAA26430@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Stop card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA > The most funny thing happenned when a player put the > Stop, opened 2C, and partner alerted this as "weak". > Called to table I was told this was their agreement: > weak with Stop, and strong without Stop. Efficient, > I told. I will play this treatment... joke... Yes, a very effective method. No doubt about it. > I also think the Stop card would be eliminated, My own preference would be for the stop card to be left out for 10 s, preferably timed on a wristwatch.* This would avoid disputes about the length of pauses. Ten seconds is an eternity in bridge terms, and it is also difficult to judge. Unfortunately, at least one BoD member is adamantly opposed to this procedure, so there is no chance of adopting it in the ACBL. It is also more complex than the current procedure, so maybe it isn't desirable for that reason. ----- *This is for normal jumps early in the auction. Later in the auction, or where there is little chance of tempo problems, I'm happy if the stop card is left out only two or three seconds -- say long enough for most players to decide on a lead-directing double. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 10:10:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:10:09 +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 KAA23234 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:10:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:09:46 -0800 Message-ID: <00f101bf429a$7cffd100$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <02b101bf4217$3aa5f920$e8e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Not Asking For Partner's Benefit Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:08:25 -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 Peter Gill wrote: > >> Years of exposure to opponents playing Relay Systems means that in > >> Australia, we all have become accustomed to *not asking* about the > >> meaning of every alerted call. Otherwise the game collapses into a > >> morass of questions and answers, perhaps 10 or 15 times in some > >> auctions. > > Announcements would help, when the bidder is unlikely to learn something from the immediate Announcement by partner of a call's meaning. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 10:50:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:50:22 +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 KAA23388 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:50:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:50:03 -0800 Message-ID: <00fd01bf42a0$1d8acee0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:44:30 -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 Okay, I made a mistake, writing >Then a possible 3C bid by West must be considered, > quite logical if East is known to be short in spades. Got my majors mixed up for a minute there, as West would not have reason to think that East is short in spades. > That would be > only -50 for E-W, a good score. Or would the vulnerable South go on > to 3H, despite "knowing" (according to Drury, which South must > assume) that North is below strength. Determining all this takes a > lot of time. > This scenario is now considerably less likely, but perhaps still reasonable. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 10:52:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:10:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from avalon.netcom.net.uk (root@avalon.netcom.net.uk [194.42.225.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23268 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:10:39 +1100 (EST) From: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Received: from dialup-00-02.netcomuk.co.uk (dialup-00-02.netcomuk.co.uk [194.42.228.2]) by avalon.netcom.net.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA15105 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:10:25 GMT To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 23:10:29 +0000 Reply-To: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Message-ID: References: <3.0.1.32.19991209161127.0076fcfc@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: 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 KAA23269 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:27:17 -0800, Linda wrote: > >Maybe I am just cranky because I have just about finished wading my way >through the 56 appeals we had at the Boston NABC. Cranky or not it was spot on! My reaction was Yessssssss! -- Pam Sussex, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 11:28:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:28:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23482 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:27:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:27:48 -0800 Message-ID: <010001bf42a5$635dec40$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:16:40 -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: > > From: A. L. Edwards > > > I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm > > just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. > > Tony (aka ac342) > > Matchpoints > > Board 15 S QJT S W N E > > Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P > > NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D > > C 54 2H P P P > > S 9652 S K8 > > H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not > alerted > > D Q63 D T982 > > C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS > > S A743 > > H A9852 Before the opening lead, > South > > D 74 informed the opps that there > > C Q8 had been a failure to alert > 2C. > > EW called the director. > > The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an > > artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S > > would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). > > Away from the table, W said that had he been properly informed, he would > not > > have balanced; East claimed that he would have doubled clubs. The director > > told the players to play the hand out. After a result was obtained, EW > > asked the director to review the hand. The director decided: > > result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result > > had the irregularity not occured; > > NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that > > was at all probable. > > You have the hands reversed, I think (N is at the bottom of the diagram), > and my comments are based on this. If E (W?) claims that he would have > doubled clubs, then 2C is not at all likely, as the Drury bidder would > not have given partner a second chance to pass the artificial bid (partner's > pass of the artificial bid is AI, and it's playing a very deep game indeed > to make the Drury bidder field a possible psych). E/W get the score for 2C > only if both would have passed it if properly informed. But then West would possibly have bid 3C (wouldn't you?) over 2H, and it must be decided if it was highly likely that the vulnerable South, knowing North opens bad four-card suits in third position, would go on to 3H, given the knowledge (per Drury) that North is under-strength for his opening. If there is at least one chance three (per ACBL LC), that he would not, then the assigned score for both sides is 3C by West down one. If the chance is less that one in three, but at least one in six, then N/S are assigned a score of +50, E/W -140. > > The reason that we ask players what they would have done (away from the > table) is to get a feel for how the MI actually altered the auction, and to > help us determine what would have been likely had the infraction not > occurred. L12C2 does not require that you determine what would have been likely had the infraction not occurred. How often do I have to write that? The "most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" may be a result that is unlikely, only one chance in three according to the ACBL LC guideline. The "most unfavorable result that was at all probable," infraction or not infraction, which could be as unlikely as one chance in six, must also be determined. As I said in another thread, these determinations should be made, if possible, without the aid of the players. Make the ruling, then listen to objections if there are any. If the ruling cannot be made without help from one or more players (rarely true), don't do the questioning right in the middle of a deal, especially in a pair game that provides only so many minutes per round. The idea that one must get an answer before a player has a chance to think about it is insulting and grossly unfair. >If either E or W claims that they would have made a call other > than pass with proper information, then 2C -3 is no longer an unfavorable > result that is at all probable, since the opponents have admitted that they > would have taken N/S off of the hook. In this case "proper information" is knowledge that 2C is Drury, obtained somehow with no involvement by North. Who would double 2C if they know that an unAlerted 2C is Drury? It is very likely that West's answer was based on what he would have done if 2C had been Alerted, and that he did not understand that his answer should have been based on his knowing that the *unAlerted* 2C was Drury (hence unknown by North). > > So, since E(W?) claims he would have doubled clubs, we have to determine how > the auction would have gone from that point. The fact that his partner > would not have balanced is immaterial, as he would never have gotten the > chance. The Drury bidder converts to 2H, and we now have to determine if it > is at all probable that E/W find the 3C sacrifice. I don't think it likely, > given the W(E?) defensive strenth in hearts, but it is possible that he > could find a raise of clubs, or that E(W?) could unilaterally save after N/S > return to the heart fit. We don't allow N/S to get to 3H. I don't follow this. If West definitely knew that 2C was Drury, perhaps with the help of a proper opposing CC, he probably would realize that N/S had a misunderstanding and would pass 2C. His statement that he would double 2C was probably based on the presumption of an Alert by North of South's 2C bid. If West were to double 2C, I don't see why N/S can't get to 3H over 3C because of the MI. South heard North opened the bidding with 1H, and any decision to bid 3H is not helped by partner's failure to Alert 2C. > > FWIW, my ruling on the information given is 3C -1, N/S +50. I see no reason > whatsoever to split the score. > FWIW, my ruling is -300/+300 for N/S and E/W. This is based on my belief that both West and East would have passed 2C if they had known it was a Drury bid that North did not catch. At least I think that is probable enough to justify my score assignments. Let's be clear that the infraction of law was not the failure to Alert, which is merely an ACBL regulation to help disclosure, but the MI itself. Had both East and West seen Drury on the opposing card, there would have been no MI and no infraction of law, just a violation of the Alert Procedure. When one considers what might have happened in the absence of MI, that does not mean one has to include an Alert in the scenario, thereby letting North off the hook for his blunder. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 11:49:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:49:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23559 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:49:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:48:04 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991209194347.0083e180@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 19:43:47 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: RE: Stop card In-Reply-To: References: <004901bf426d$c59c8160$1684d9ce@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:00 PM 12/9/99 -0800, Linda Trent wrote: >I know he is right when it comes to golf. The integrity of that sport is >off the chart compared to ours. Do all the little old ladies quit playing >golf because they get a 2 stroke penalty when their ball moves? Period.? >No - They take the penalty because that is a Rule of The Game - and not only >that, they are REQUIRED to call the penalty on themselves, or they are >DISQUALIFIED from the event they are playing in. I agree with much of what you say, however this analogy is off target. Little old ladies don't play in golf events where such stoke penalties are enforced. I don't imagine 99% of the golfers impose a one stroke penalty on themselves for grounding a club in a hazard, for example. These same little old ladies come in from their round of golf where they broke all sorts of rules without a thought and then play bridge at the club in the evening and can't see why the stop card must be used every single time they skip the bidding. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 11:57:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:57:57 +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 LAA23600 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:57:49 +1100 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id QAA28884; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:56:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA9017; 9 Dec 99 16:56:47 -0800 Date: 9 Dec 99 16:54:00 -0800 Message-Id: <199912091656.AA9017@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, rwilley@mediaone.net Subject: RE: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [posted and e-mailed] Richard Willey wrote: > I'm not sure that you understand my position. > I want to publicize this entire affair in as prominent a manner as > possible. > > The entire reason to violate the rules is to attempt to provoke just > this type reaction from the authorities. There is an even better reason to provoke the projected wrath of DWS and others who feel that this is 'cheating to gain an advantage'. I would accept the 30% penalty, but *only after an appeal* [1] in which I stated that the regulation (by dis-allowing conventional followups) of 8-10 HCP 1NT openers is expressly prohibited by TFLB. I would expect this appeal [1] to be denied. I might even end up $50 out of pocket. But then -- and only then, as I would have exhausted my administrative remedies -- I could appeal this to the Laws Commission, and get (on the record) a statement of how they perceive this prohibition to be lawful. Civil disobedience has always had the potential consequence of inconveniencing[2] the protestors. either in the short term or the long term. It seems some of us are willing to be so inconvenienced. Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, California {ACBL District 21} [1] Well, appeal*s*, if David's suggestion holds sway. [2] I realize that -- in the greater scheme of things -- ostracism by the bridge community is nowhere near the level of 'inconvenience' experienced by those protesting more important matters through civil disobedience, and I am not trying to trivialize their efforts, nor to suggest an unwonted parallelism. Nevertheless, I do find it strange that one must 'disobey' one's NCBO/ZO in order to have an appeal against their regulations heard. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 12:50:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:50:57 +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 MAA23744 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:50:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from p22s04a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.116.35] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11vsw4-0005l5-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 02:04:01 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 01:53:19 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf42b1$54ec9a60$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, December 09, 1999 6:30 PM Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods >Richard Willey wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>> [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Marvin L. >>> French >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 11:45 AM >>> To: Bridge Laws >>> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods >>> >>> >>> David Grabiner wrote: >>> >>> > This is the ACBL's interpretation; a 9 HCP 1NT is abusive and is >>> > thus explicitly forbidden, while a 4 HCP weak 2-bid is part of the >>game >>> > and is allowed. I agree with you that this is inconsistent. >> >>> Do I have this wrong? Opening a 9 HCP 1NT is not explicitly >>> forbidden, you just can't use conventions after opening 1NT if you >>> ever do that. >> >> >>The ACBL's expressed goal in implementing this regulation is to make a 9 >>HCP 1N opening unplayable. >>I certainly believe that disallowing any conventional bids in any >>auctions following a 1N opening is a sufficient deterrent to discourage >>me from using the opening bid in question. >> >>I'm afraid I don't appreciate the distinction that you are trying to >>make. >> >>Out of curiosity, has anyone else considered simply ignoring ACBL >>regulations that they don't happen to like? >>The organisation is desperate for cash. The ACBL can't get its act >>together well enough to effectively ban documented cheaters. I don't >>think that the organisation would refuse to collect money over a >>disagreement on bidding theory. >> >>In all seriousness, civil disobedience is an extremely effective means >>of protest. >>It draws a very specific link between cause and effect. >>It does so in a very public manner in a way that can not be easily >>hushed up. >> >>What's the worst that they can do? Take away our precious >>master-points? > > I think, as with other forms of cheating, that the publicity is one of >the major parts of the punishment. > > You are suggesting deliberately and knowledgeably going against the >rules by which this game is played to gain an advantage over other >people. ie cheating. I think that I should just say that you are doing >this, naming you, on page 1 of the ACBL Bulletin. If I [as the ACBL] >feel there is no other method but publicity, and this is not sufficient >to stop you cheating, then at ever event, I would produce flyers, saying >that you cheat, and describing how. I would also say, that whether >there is damage or not, any opponent that reports you will get an extra >10% of a top added to their score, and 30% of a top will be deducted >from yours. I shall put this in the flyer, with your picture. > > I think I may manage to stop you. > > Every organisation has some terrible rules. Cheating is not the >answer: it would be your opponents who suffer not the organisation. > > I do not suppose you were serious! David, You and I have recently been involved in a very serious cheating incident. I suspect that in due course one or both of us may share with other TDs the story behind the headlines. I approve of the publication of such action within the Bridge world as a deterrent to others. I must however say that the worldwide publicity that this incident has attracted is out of all proportion, and I think quite inappropriate. Your reaction to the above quoted suggestion that a player might ignore the regulations he does not approve of is way over the top. Apart from this, to those who practice civil disobedience as a political gesture, publicity (either good or bad)is often the attention which is sought. The way to implement regulations is to educate and persuade,if necessary to penalise in points, and the ultimate sanction is to bar. The action you threaten should be reserved for the lynching parties. Bridge is a game remember. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 12:53:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:53:50 +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 MAA23760 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:53:42 +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 11wFFT-0001IW-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 01:53:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:12:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> In-Reply-To: <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >The reason that we ask players what they would have done (away from the >table) is to get a feel for how the MI actually altered the auction, and to >help us determine what would have been likely had the infraction not >occurred. This is an unfortunate procedure, being [yet again] a mechanism designed to give a non-offending side a poorer score than the Laws suggest. > If either E or W claims that they would have made a call other >than pass with proper information, then 2C -3 is no longer an unfavorable >result that is at all probable, since the opponents have admitted that they >would have taken N/S off of the hook. This is why this procedure should be taken out to sea and dumped. Whether the action counts as at all probable is a decision for the TD and AC, not to be got by bullying poor players in unfamiliar surroundings. >So, since E(W?) claims he would have doubled clubs, we have to determine how >the auction would have gone from that point. No, we don't. When adjusting for a score, we determine the total likely out comes, and the total at all probable out comes, and then take the most favourable/unfavourable as our adjustment. The one thing we never do in adjustments is decide how the auction [or play] *would* have gone. > The fact that his partner >would not have balanced is immaterial, as he would never have gotten the >chance. The Drury bidder converts to 2H, and we now have to determine if it >is at all probable that E/W find the 3C sacrifice. I don't think it likely, >given the W(E?) defensive strenth in hearts, but it is possible that he >could find a raise of clubs, or that E(W?) could unilaterally save after N/S >return to the heart fit. We don't allow N/S to get to 3H. The whole approach is wrong. Just go through all the possibilities, deciding whether they are likely or at all probable, then decide. It is not right to go through looking for a single trail: that means you are not following the Laws. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+1 one day late] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 13:13:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:13:24 +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 NAA23847 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:13:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.uaf.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18275 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:12:38 -0900 (AKST) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:12:38 -0900 (AKST) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Stop card In-Reply-To: <199912092310.SAA26430@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Steve Willner wrote: : My own preference would be for the stop card to be left out for 10 s, : preferably timed on a wristwatch.* This would avoid disputes about the I would like to see the Stop Card regulations better enforced as well. I nearly always make the required pause, and usualy find that there is something worth thinking about, perhaps my opening lead, or what to do if partner balances, etc. But another good reason I like to see the Stop Card used and obeyed is that when partner makes a skip bid, I usually also need the time to decide on my call. If my RHO calls too quickly, I am put in an awkward tempo situation. 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 sorry, this is abuse. Arguments are next door." ] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 13:20:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:20:09 +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 NAA23882 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:20:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from p71s08a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.120.114] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11vtOS-00075k-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 02:33:21 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:22:37 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf42b5$6d1a09c0$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: Linda Trent To: Bridge Laws Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 10:48 PM Subject: RE: Stop card > >Maybe I am just cranky because I have just about finished wading my way >through the 56 appeals we had at the Boston NABC. > >Tempo 25 >Other UI 9 >MI 15 >Misc 7 > >*ugh* > >ALthough I am not surprised. Whenever two (and at this tournament it was >usually more than two) of the five player comfort variables (table space, >lighting, ventilation, temperature, noise level) are violated, we have very >cranky (understandably) players - I am finding this correlated to the number >of appeals we end up with. If you're "cranky" then so am I. I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis and suspect I could find the figures to support. I think you should include in your list of variables the TD. Not only his or her ability, but his or her presentation, attitude and demeanour. I also find that when the players are dressed well they behave well. ( a bit like football supporters, I'll bet that if you dressed them in suits, there'd be far less hooliganism.) Perhaps I'm a darn sight more cranky (love the word) than most! Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 13:20:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:20:09 +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 NAA23881 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:19:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from p71s08a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.120.114] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11vtOQ-00075k-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 02:33:19 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:09:25 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf42b3$952e9360$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: Bridge Laws Date: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:12 AM Subject: RE: Stop card >At 02:00 PM 12/9/99 -0800, Linda Trent wrote: >>I know he is right when it comes to golf. The integrity of that sport is >>off the chart compared to ours. Do all the little old ladies quit playing >>golf because they get a 2 stroke penalty when their ball moves? Period.? >>No - They take the penalty because that is a Rule of The Game - and not only >>that, they are REQUIRED to call the penalty on themselves, or they are >>DISQUALIFIED from the event they are playing in. > >I agree with much of what you say, however this analogy is off target. >Little old ladies don't play in golf events where such stoke penalties are >enforced. I don't imagine 99% of the golfers impose a one stroke penalty >on themselves for grounding a club in a hazard, for example. These same >little old ladies come in from their round of golf where they broke all >sorts of rules without a thought and then play bridge at the club in the >evening and can't see why the stop card must be used every single time they >skip the bidding. I'm in the business of educating players to do the right thing and I do think that stop cards are a good thing, but only when used correctly. When I am about to make a skip bid, I put the stop card to my left, facing my LHO, and if it's a player that I know does not observe the regulation normally, I say, "do you mind "stopping" for 10 seconds to give my partner time to think?" This is usually a big surprise. Players think that the whole purpose of a stop card is to draw attention to the skip, they may think it's to avoid UI, but they rarely consider that UI is available when they have no points. Rather than suggest they are making life easier for their own partner (they wouldn't do that would they?) it makes them feel good when you are asking them to do your side a favour. Well you are suggesting that you partner is mentally slow aren't you! Surprisingly a lot of the LOLs of my experience are happy to help, and they do continue the practice at other tables, even repeating the wording of my request to others :-) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 13:22:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:22:47 +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 NAA23909 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:22:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.141] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11wFhQ-0008SW-00; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:22:25 +0000 Message-ID: <003901bf42b5$6d1a09c0$875408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Flemming_B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?= , References: <99Dec9.014458cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:13:47 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! ================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen To: Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 12:41 AM Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? > Maybe I'm far out here, but would it not be a possible reading, that the > Lille interpretation was needed because a double shot not always > can be considered irrational, wild or gambling? That is, the interpretation > tells us to consider the double shot an irrational, wild or gambling > action, althoug it isn't per se. > +=+ I would think 'gambling' in particular. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 14:41:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:41:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24150 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:41:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:41:32 -0800 Message-ID: <012201bf42c0$7347c2a0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:41:24 -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: > > When I am in a charitable mood, I describe the current system in use > by the ACBL using expressions like "Byzantine", "poorly conceived", > and "inefficient". However, I more often use expressions such as > "corrupt" and "bribery". > > The convention regulation process here in the US is done by an > extremely small group of people. There is little if any opportunity > for the rank and file membership to affect the process. However, > strange loopholes which allow the pet methods of prominent board > members always seem to work their way into the rules. The "Woodson > Two-Way NT" and the "Piltch Defense" over NT openings are the two > best examples that spring to mind. The Dynamic NT opening is, of > course, another interesting convention in this same category. Don't forget the Flannery Convention, whose influential users have convinced the BoD to declare in the Alert Procedure that promising five spades when responding 1S to 1H, or responding 1NT to 1H when holding four spades, has "become expected and fairly common;" so no Alert is required. Baloney! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 14:47:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:47:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24177 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:47:31 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id t.0.22e5d7d0 (3734); Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:46:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.22e5d7d0.2581d1a4@aol.com> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:46:44 EST Subject: Re: Stop card To: ltrent@home.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 12/9/99 5:32:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, ltrent@home.com writes: > ALthough I am not surprised. Whenever two (and at this tournament it was > usually more than two) of the five player comfort variables (table space, > lighting, ventilation, temperature, noise level) are violated, we have very > cranky (understandably) players - I am finding this correlated to the number > of appeals we end up with. > > Linda > And when you let the non-bridge player "officials" and the politicians decide what is needed vis-a-vis those factors you mentioned, you get exactly what we are getting now. We used to hire expert TDs to assure those factors. Who does it now? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 14:49:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:49:10 +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 OAA24198 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:49:01 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id t.0.327353cf (3734); Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:43:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.327353cf.2581d0f3@aol.com> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:43:47 EST Subject: Re: Stop card To: ltrent@home.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 12/9/99 5:05:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, ltrent@home.com writes: > It just boggles my mind that this is the only > game I know of that I can play that I don't even need to bother learning the > rules. Bridge's problems are much more serious than whether or not we have a > Stop Card. > > Linda > That's what I call cutting through all the rhetoric, BS, and posing on the BLML, and getting down to the nitty-gritty. Most of these esoteric arguments about wording are aside from the clearly intended meaning of the words. I shudder to think what the IOC would think if they had an inkling of how really poorly our players are informed of the structure of the game. I'm not talking about penalties, I'm talking about the structure of how we are supposed to play bridge. I'm much concerned with the losey-goosey attitude we have toward not requiring the players to know what they are doing, and what is permissible and what is not. Just an example, the STOP card. A measure that was instituted to try to make people abide by the ethics of bidding. So, how much effort goes into educating them about the WHY we have a STOP card? Could a good education program make the card unnecessary? Of course, but again we find the emphasis on other things than making players into players. Bravo, Linda. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 14:50:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:50:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24215 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:50:43 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id v.0.f99caed1 (3734); Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:49:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.f99caed1.2581d246@aol.com> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:49:26 EST Subject: Re: Stop card 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 12/9/99 6:11:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > My own preference would be for the stop card to be left out for 10 s, > preferably timed on a wristwatch.* This would avoid disputes about the > length of pauses. Ten seconds is an eternity in bridge terms, and it > is also difficult to judge. Unfortunately, at least one BoD member is > adamantly opposed to this procedure, so there is no chance of adopting > it in the ACBL. It is also more complex than the current procedure, > so maybe it isn't desirable for that reason. Yep, but this has no effect on the "fast pass" as soon as the card is removed. Let's face it, the STOP card is another Bandaid. Rather than educate and regulate the players in the ethics of tempo bidding, we give them another item they can manipulate to get the message across to partner. O temp, o mores!!! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 14:59:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:59:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24318 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:59:20 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id f.0.338a6b54 (3734); Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:58:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.338a6b54.2581d465@aol.com> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:58:29 EST Subject: Re: Stop card 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 In a message dated 12/9/99 9:21:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk writes: > Perhaps I'm a darn sight more cranky (love the word) than most! > Anne And the two of you are only slightly approaching the way I feel right now!!!! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 15:02:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:02:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24340 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:01:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:01:42 -0800 Message-ID: <014901bf42c3$44c3c5c0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912091656.AA9017@gateway.tandem.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:58:40 -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: > > There is an even better reason to provoke the projected wrath of DWS > and others who feel that this is 'cheating to gain an advantage'. > I would accept the 30% penalty, but *only after an appeal* [1] in which > I stated that the regulation (by dis-allowing conventional followups) > of 8-10 HCP 1NT openers is expressly prohibited by TFLB. I would > expect this appeal [1] to be denied. I might even end up $50 out > of pocket. Don't worry, Wally. The $50 deposit is no longer required by the ACBL, and you just get a black mark beside your name for an appeal that is considered to be without merit. Too many of those and you appear before some disciplinary committee, where you have a chance to explain yourself. No, the proceedings won't be published, just the imposed penalty. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 15:07:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:07:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24379 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:07:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:07:07 -0800 Message-ID: <015e01bf42c4$0660e5a0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <004901bf426d$c59c8160$1684d9ce@oemcomputer> <3.0.6.32.19991209194347.0083e180@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:06:40 -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 Goodwin wrote: > Linda Trent wrote: > >I know he is right when it comes to golf. The integrity of that sport is > >off the chart compared to ours. Do all the little old ladies quit playing > >golf because they get a 2 stroke penalty when their ball moves? Period.? > >No - They take the penalty because that is a Rule of The Game - and not only > >that, they are REQUIRED to call the penalty on themselves, or they are > >DISQUALIFIED from the event they are playing in. > > I agree with much of what you say, however this analogy is off target. > Little old ladies don't play in golf events where such stoke penalties are > enforced. I don't imagine 99% of the golfers impose a one stroke penalty > on themselves for grounding a club in a hazard, for example. These same > little old ladies come in from their round of golf where they broke all > sorts of rules without a thought and then play bridge at the club in the > evening and can't see why the stop card must be used every single time they > skip the bidding. > Now I am glad I brought up the game of tennis, in which the senior women play very much within the rules, even in casual social matches and certainly in their tournaments. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 15:38:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:38:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24564 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:38:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:38:08 -0800 Message-ID: <000f01bf42c8$5b72b600$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:37:19 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Schmahl wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > : My own preference would be for the stop card to be left out for 10 s, > : preferably timed on a wristwatch.* Why not a 10-second timer on every table? Push a button and it dings after 10 seconds. > > I would like to see the Stop Card regulations better enforced as well. > I nearly always make the required pause, and usualy find that there is > something worth thinking about, perhaps my opening lead, or what to do if > partner balances, etc. And even when you have nothing to think about, no doubt you act as if you do, studying your hand intently. I estimate that only about 1% of players do that, even though it is required by the ACBL Stop Card regulation. > > But another good reason I like to see the Stop Card used and obeyed is > that when partner makes a skip bid, I usually also need the time to decide > on my call. If my RHO calls too quickly, I am put in an awkward tempo > situation. Good point. Moreover, there are many tempo-sensitive situations other than skip bids that could use a required pause. Some places require a pause by everyone on the first round of bidding, which seems like a good idea. The 10-second duration seems somewhat excessive for those not playing in an important national championship. I have never seen anyone wait that long unless they (sic) have a real problem . Maybe the time should be reduced to a more realistic five seconds for lesser events, in order to get more support for proper use of the Stop Card. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 15:52:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:55:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24275 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:55:22 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 1.0.4bb3e2d3 (3734); Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:54:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.4bb3e2d3.2581d380@aol.com> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:54:40 EST Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods To: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, rwilley@mediaone.net 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 12/9/99 7:59:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM writes: > Civil disobedience has always had the potential consequence of > inconveniencing[2] the protestors. either in the short term or the long > term. It seems some of us are willing to be so inconvenienced. What, no signs, posters, sit-ins? Get real. Why not try intelligent argument? kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 16:54:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:55:15 +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 NAA24009 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:55:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua415474 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:54:24 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-184.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.184]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Whacko-MailRouter V2.6h 13/1196883); 10 Dec 1999 12:54:24 Message-ID: <005c01bf42b9$aea38c00$b8df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:53:04 +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 David Grabiner wrote: >I do use it, but few players honor it on an auction like 1NT-3NT on which >it is very rare for anyone to bid. > >What is the situation in the rest of the world? > In Australia, Stop Cards and Skip Bid Warnings do not exist. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 16:55:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:55:31 +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 QAA24888 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:55:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5 [134.117.136.25]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id AAA07617 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:55:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id AAA05205; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:55:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:55:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199912100555.AAA05205@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Stop card Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >Maybe I am just cranky because I have just about finished wading my way >through the 56 appeals we had at the Boston NABC. > >Tempo 25 >Other UI 9 >MI 15 >Misc 7 > >*ugh* > >ALthough I am not surprised. Whenever two (and at this tournament it was >usually more than two) of the five player comfort variables (table space, >lighting, ventilation, temperature, noise level) are violated, we have very >cranky (understandably) players - I am finding this correlated to the number >of appeals we end up with. > >Linda > I talked with some of the players (and one of the directors) who were in Boston. They did not seem very happy with the tournament conditions, and I'm not talking about the regulations! What was going on? (If we need a law reference for this gossip, perhaps L81B1 and L81C3?) Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 17:44:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:52:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24233 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:51:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:51:37 -0800 Message-ID: <013901bf42c1$dc175060$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991209161127.0076fcfc@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:44:05 -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 Mike Dennis wrote, in regard to the Stop Card: > > Despite the problems and the lack of any immediate utility to the game at > low levels, I think the card does have a worthwhile educational function, > and I suspect that the increased proper usage in more serious venues > reflects a sort of percolating upward effect, so I would not ban its use. > You would do better to *require* its use. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 17:52:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:55:14 +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 NAA23998 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:55:00 +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 11wGCo-0005KM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:54:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:35:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Innocent or double shot? References: <028f01bf4216$11635720$e8e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <02cd01bf428b$57e25000$ca0ebad1@gw.totalweb.net> In-Reply-To: <02cd01bf428b$57e25000$ca0ebad1@gw.totalweb.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bill Bickford wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> You calculate the imps first, not last. The IMP scale is designed to >> compare two real scores not two unreal ones. >How do you reconcile this with Imp Pairs scored under Butler scoring? Very sneaky question. Quango seems to be laughing in the background. I can think of no answer. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+2 late] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 18:15:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:15:04 +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 SAA25125 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:14:57 +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 <19991210071447.WGQW7162.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:14:47 -0800 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: Stop card Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:11:34 -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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199912100555.AAA05205@freenet5.carleton.ca> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I talked with some of the players (and one of the directors) who were in > Boston. They did not seem very happy with the tournament conditions, > and I'm not talking about the regulations! What was going on? > (If we need a law reference for this gossip, perhaps L81B1 and L81C3?) > Well - first there were two sites, in two hotels that were a good 15 min. walk apart. When the National events had big fields, everyone was crammed into a too small space and on two floors of the Westin. The smoking area was in three small rooms at the Westin on the third floor and all the smoke leaked out into the lobby-like area that was shared by the playing area. The poor smokers are at least entitled to a half-ventilated area - the spot they had was truly awful for everyone. For appeals, we couldn't even get copies of the appeal form for the committee members because the copy machine was at the other hotel. Had to hold committees in playing areas. Didn't have enough screening directors. People sometimes had to wait an hour just to get a case screened. All the Directors that used to help were over at the other hotel hearing Director Panel cases most of the time. Boston was very expensive. $28 a day to park your car at the hotel. those are just a few things I can think of without trying hard.... too bad, becuause as usual the local volunteers worked their you-know-what off and couldn't overcome conditions they had no control over. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 18:21:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:55:15 +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 NAA23997 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:55:00 +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 11wGCo-0005KP-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:54:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:40:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Stop card References: <3.0.1.32.19991209161127.0076fcfc@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991209161127.0076fcfc@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 11:13 AM 12/9/99 -0500, Laval wrote: >>I yould appreciate your opinion before sending a letter >>to ACBL Bulletin editor. >> >In club games, the Stop Card serves no obvious purpose, and does create >confusion and potential for abuse. As I have previously posted, but will repeat, if the stop card is usually used right, this does not apply. Are you suggesting that English clubs are better than American clubs? if the regs were enforced in clubs, after a period of confusion, the game would run better - and no-one would complain or worry. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+2 late] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 18:57:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:57:45 +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 SAA25222 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:57:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.171.227.81] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11wKvd-0007Lp-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:57:25 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01bf42e4$0d54c820$51e3abc3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <005c01bf42b9$aea38c00$b8df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:56:22 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: 10 December 1999 02:53 Subject: Re: Stop card > David Grabiner wrote: > >I do use it, but few players honor it on an auction like 1NT-3NT on which > >it is very rare for anyone to bid. > > > >What is the situation in the rest of the world? > > > > > In Australia, Stop Cards and Skip Bid Warnings do not exist. > The way they bid in Australia, it might be an idea to have a card warning your opponent that you are not about to make a skip bid :) David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 19:01:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:55:26 +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 NAA24017 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:55:17 +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 11wGCo-000MEE-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:54:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:29:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <01bf42b1$54ec9a60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf42b1$54ec9a60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >David, You and I have recently been involved in a very serious cheating >incident. I suspect that in due course one or both of us may share with >other TDs the story behind the headlines. >I approve of the publication of such action within the Bridge world as a >deterrent to others. I must however say that the worldwide publicity that >this incident has attracted is out of all proportion, and I think quite >inappropriate. >Your reaction to the above quoted suggestion that a player might ignore >the regulations he does not approve of is way over the top. >Apart from this, to those who practice civil disobedience as a political >gesture, publicity (either good or bad)is often the attention which is >sought. >The way to implement regulations is to educate and persuade,if >necessary to penalise in points, and the ultimate sanction is to bar. >The action you threaten should be reserved for the lynching parties. >Bridge is a game remember. We have just banned a man for ten years for cheating. You are saying that a different from of cheating is acceptable? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+2 late] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 19:15:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:52:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24234 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:51:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:51:39 -0800 Message-ID: <013c01bf42c1$dd23de60$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:49:28 -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 Linda Trent wrote: > Is this not what Procedural Penalties are designed for? How many 1/4 board > penalties do you think it would take to get people to straighten up? There > are a million things - mandate the use of the Stop Card, mandate Convention > Card regulations, just to name a couple that spring to mind immediately that > would be easy. Craig, I bet even you, after losing 3 boards in a session, > would learn to follow the procedure. If you choose to abandon the game > rather than comply, then perhaps that is the best solution for everyone. In > my opinion, chaos is worse. Whenever I advance this theory I get told, "but > everyone will stop playing because you are so mean!" > > Bah, humbug! I was in a meeting and a very prominent player made a good > point: Bridge will never gain acceptance as a serious sport because the way > we conduct ourselves makes us the laughingstock of the serious sports world. > > I know he is right when it comes to golf. The integrity of that sport is > off the chart compared to ours. Do all the little old ladies quit playing > golf because they get a 2 stroke penalty when their ball moves? Period.? > No - They take the penalty because that is a Rule of The Game - and not only > that, they are REQUIRED to call the penalty on themselves, or they are > DISQUALIFIED from the event they are playing in. And they probably paid $50 > for their four-hour session - not the $5-$10 we typically play. I'd love to > see that penalty in bridge. It just boggles my mind that this is the only > game I know of that I can play that I don't even need to bother learning the > rules. Bridge's problems are much more serious than whether or not we have a > Stop Card. > Tennis is another game in which players know the rules and abide by them. Everyone joining the USTA is given a condensed version of the rules of the game, and are expected to follow them. Any time a rule is broken during the play of a point, the point is lost. That's how to achieve compliance! Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 19:26:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:38:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (fb01.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24816 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:38:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehhj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.51]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA18472 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:37:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991210003514.00766e90@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:35:14 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 In-Reply-To: References: <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:12 PM 12/9/99 +0000, David S wrote: > This is why this procedure should be taken out to sea and dumped. >Whether the action counts as at all probable is a decision for the TD >and AC, not to be got by bullying poor players in unfamiliar >surroundings. Sorry, but I missed the post where someone endorsed bullying players. No one on this list has been a more consistent advocate of the practice of asking a variety of questions in investigating MI and UI claims, so your sudden lack of interest in West's opinion of his own likely course of action is a startling reversal. I certainly agree that questions should not be asked in a threatening way, and I disagree strongly with Marvin's apparent willingness to frame the question in a way which prejudices the answer in favor of the NOS (just as the questions should not be framed for the opposite purpose). But I see nothing wrong and some potential value from asking West how he might have bid if he had known what 2C really meant. If he doesn't know (or is unwilling to make an admission against his own interest), then no harm, no foul. But if he has a clear notion, and especially when the proposed action converges so cleanly with the hand he holds, then that does seem to make a pretty persuasive case for what would actually happened absent the MI. What do we gain by having the TD second-guess both the evidence of the cards and the word of the West player? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 19:48:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:59:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (fb02.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24633 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:59:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehhj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.51]) by fb02.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA20057 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:59:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991209235621.00764bbc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 23:56:21 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 In-Reply-To: <00f001bf429a$7bf34300$d5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:03 PM 12/9/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: >E-W have been misinformed, and if East had known that 2C was Drury >it is not unlikely that he would have passed instead of bidding 2D. >One might say, "But if 2C had been properly Alerted, hence no >infraction, the 2H contract would have been perfectly normal." That >is not the way to look at it. The TD/AC should rule/decide on the >basis of what would have happened if East and West had known that 2C >was Drury, with that knowledge somehow provided (e.g., behind a >screen) without North's involvement. I agree with this. The fact that the proper information could only have been provided by the player who ultimately forgot it is irrelevant, and we need not take the view (which, so far as I know, nobody has done) that if EW had been duly informed by an alert from North, then perforce North would have taken action himself. No, we should treat the contrafactual assumption of full information as having arrived independently of the befuddled North. But you seem prepared to take it a step further. > >But we have to consider West, not just East. One would think that >West would not double 2C, whether or not he was aware that it was >Drury. If it was natural, West is delighted. If Drury, it would be >stupid to possibly straighten out a misunderstanding by asking about >the bid and/or by doubling. EW are not entitled to have it both ways, IMO. I agree that the analysis should not let North off the hook for forgetting, but it is neither reasonable nor fair nor required as a matter of law to assume that West would have been properly informed (independently of North) and yet also clued into North's confusion on the matter, at least until North makes it plain by passing. The proper line of analysis is as Hirsch has suggested: we should determine what West would likely have done if he had known that 2C was Drury, by agreement. And both his holding and his own testimony argue strongly for a double of 2C. And as Hirsch points out, that pretty much rules out a club contract by NS. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 19:52:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 19:52:32 +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 TAA25383 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 19:52:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA08655; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:52:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJBZ4CR41U0014RK@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:51:07 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:51:07 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:51:06 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 To: "'ac342@freenet.carleton.ca'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a perfect candidate for the yearly to be organized Christmas puzzle in BLML-land. What is the worst decision taken? You may choose: 1) Playing with this North 2) Using a convention in which a weak hand has to make a reverse call 3) Not reaching 4 hearts 4) Balancing with 2 diamonds 5) The TD decision 6) The AC decision We will pick a winner among the majority voters The prize is being allowed not to read BLML for one week. Eventually curiosity wins. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca [mailto:ac342@freenet.carleton.ca] Verzonden: donderdag 9 december 1999 7:42 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. Tony (aka ac342) Matchpoints Board 15 S QJT S W N E Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D C 54 2H P P P S 9652 S K8 H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not alerted D Q63 D T982 C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS S A743 H A9852 Before the opening lead, South D 74 informed the opps that there C Q8 had been a failure to alert 2C. EW called the director. The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). Away from the table, W said that had he been properly informed, he would not have balanced; East claimed that he would have doubled clubs. The director told the players to play the hand out. After a result was obtained, EW asked the director to review the hand. The director decided: result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result had the irregularity not occured; NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. NS appealed. The committee upheld the director's ruling; there was some thought to adjusting EW to +300, but they decided to keep the result as it was. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 20:00:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:18:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24085 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:18:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:18:36 -0800 Message-ID: <011801bf42bd$3fc83200$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com><001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:10:44 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > > You are suggesting deliberately and knowledgeably going against the > rules by which this game is played to gain an advantage over other > people. ie cheating. I think that I should just say that you are doing > this, naming you, on page 1 of the ACBL Bulletin. If I [as the ACBL] > feel there is no other method but publicity, and this is not sufficient > to stop you cheating, then at ever event, I would produce flyers, saying > that you cheat, and describing how. I would also say, that whether > there is damage or not, any opponent that reports you will get an extra > 10% of a top added to their score, and 30% of a top will be deducted > from yours. I shall put this in the flyer, with oyur picture. > > I think I may manage to stop you. > > Every organisation has some terrible rules. Cheating is not the > answer: it would be your opponents who suffer not the organisation. > > I do not suppose you were serious! > So opening a 9 HCP weak notrump, announced to the opponents as a routine 9-12, is cheating? I don't think so. Cheating is disobeying Stop Card regulations, passing slowly with strength and fast with weakness. Cheating is keeping one's CC in a purse, or (as Danny Kleinman related to me recently) putting a false CC on the table while keeping the real one in a pocket, so that opponents have to reveal their interests in the auction or play, or be deceived. Cheating is discussing deals in front of weak pairs who have yet to play them, to the detriment of the pairs they will face later. Cheating is flopping one's "private" score open on the table while writing a score, so that the opponents can see results of hands they have yet to play. Cheating is using up break time for bidding and playing hands, gaining extra time and depriving others of their breaks. Cheating is copping boards while walking to the water cooler or restroom. Cheating is failing to provide a complete description of one's partnership agreements, when asked to explain an auction. All these cheating methods are the subject of unenforced ACBL regulations, and are much more deserving of caustic comments than opening with an announced 1 HCP less than an "approved" minimum. Civil disobedience for the purpose of changing unjust laws is accepted more readily on this side of the ocean, evidently. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 20:09:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:55:28 +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 NAA24018 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:55:18 +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 11wGCw-0007Je-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:54:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:27:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: >I wrote: >>You are suggesting deliberately and knowledgeably going against the >>rules by which this game is played to gain an advantage over other >>people. ie cheating. >Yes and no > >I am certainly suggesting violating the rules by which the game is >played. >However, my motivation is NOT to gain an advantage over other >players. > >I am however, very much motivated by a desire to protest the >convention licensing system in use by the ACBL. OK, the motivation may not be there, but the effect is. There are a lot of people in the ACBL who follow the rules. Some of those people would like to play some of the things you think they ought to allow. if you break the rules and play them, and they do not so they do not, do you not feel you are taking an advantage over such people. >When I am in a charitable mood, I describe the current system in use >by the ACBL using expressions like "Byzantine", "poorly conceived", >and "inefficient". However, I more often use expressions such as >"corrupt" and "bribery". > >The convention regulation process here in the US is done by an >extremely small group of people. There is little if any opportunity >for the rank and file membership to affect the process. However, >strange loopholes which allow the pet methods of prominent board >members always seem to work their way into the rules. The "Woodson >Two-Way NT" and the "Piltch Defense" over NT openings are the two >best examples that spring to mind. The Dynamic NT opening is, of >course, another interesting convention in this same category. Fine. Go shoot them. But taking an advantage over people that follow the rules as a means of protesting this seems unfair. >>I think that I should just say that you are doing >>this, naming you, on page 1 of the ACBL Bulletin. If I [as the >>ACBL] feel there is no other method but publicity, and this is not >>sufficient to stop you cheating, then at ever event, I would produce >>flyers, saying that you cheat, and describing how. I would also >>say, that whether there is damage or not, any opponent that reports >>you will get an extra 10% of a top added to their score, and 30% of >>a top will be deducted from yours. I shall put this in the flyer, >>with your picture. > >I'm not sure that you understand my position. >I want to publicize this entire affair in as prominent a manner as >possible. > >The entire reason to violate the rules is to attempt to provoke just >this type reaction from the authorities. I don't care what the reason is: I just do not like it. I have never seen that breaking Laws in a way that benefits yourself is an acceptable method of protest. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+2 late] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 20:16:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:12:25 +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 PAA24437 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:12:16 +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 <19991210041206.TAHV7162.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:12:06 -0800 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: Stop card Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:08:53 -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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991209194347.0083e180@mail.maine.rr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Tim Goodwin > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 4:44 PM > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: Stop card > > > At 02:00 PM 12/9/99 -0800, Linda Trent wrote: > >I know he is right when it comes to golf. The integrity of that sport is > >off the chart compared to ours. Do all the little old ladies > quit playing > >golf because they get a 2 stroke penalty when their ball moves? Period.? > >No - They take the penalty because that is a Rule of The Game - > and not only > >that, they are REQUIRED to call the penalty on themselves, or they are > >DISQUALIFIED from the event they are playing in. > > I agree with much of what you say, however this analogy is off target. > Little old ladies don't play in golf events where such stoke penalties are > enforced. I don't imagine 99% of the golfers impose a one stroke penalty > on themselves for grounding a club in a hazard, for example. These same > little old ladies come in from their round of golf where they broke all > sorts of rules without a thought and then play bridge at the club in the > evening and can't see why the stop card must be used every single > time they > skip the bidding. > > Tim Excuse me? The analogy is not off target at all. I have run, been a rules offical at, and participated in many large state amateur tournaments. People regularly call penalties on themselves. I have had to disqualify contestants at several events I was officiating at. The worst one was when the lady moved her ball away from a dead snake. (Illegal) The last NC state women's amateur event I played in had over 150 ladies and the average age was well over 50. There are always a couple DQ's. I have refused to sign fellow competitors scorecards for rules violations, until the situation is adjudicated and resolved. These tournaments are more expensive than a bridge tournament - entry feels alone are $50 to $75 per day. You have the same other expenses (meals, lodging, etc) as you do at a bridge tournament, and equipment required is a whole lot more costly. My Thursday morning-40-handicapper-LOL golf league (equivalent to a club bridge game were the most stringent "rules hawkers" than anyone. Sure the Saturday hackers ignore the rules, but that is comparable to four friends playing kitchen bridge. Any organized golf group that uses the USGA handicap system, pledges to run their games according to the rules of golf just like a local bridge club does, and their efforts to try to do so are much more pronounced in the golf world. I'm afraid golf operates from a whole different perspective. The rules are sacred and protection of the honor and integrity of the game important far above any individual. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 20:44:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:58:08 +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 PAA24620 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:57:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from momsputer (pm2-33.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.63]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Sandhills) with SMTP id XAA03001 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:57:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003b01bf42cb$94a68ac0$3f60040c@momsputer> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: References: <004901bf426d$c59c8160$1684d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:59:23 -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 As a director/teacher who deals mainly with brand new players I find this discussion very interesting. I start my novices with bid boxes, (they sometimes forget to use them and bid aloud but after a few giggles they fall into the tempo of the bid box). They also learn about the stop card at the same time they are told how to bid a suit, double redouble, and pass. Easy!! The stop card is in the bid box, isn't it? They learn to tap the alert card and say alert. They are learning early in their careers how to manage the rules of bidding with and without bid boxes.. They also receive a copy of the article below from the ACBL Bulletin in 1967 explaining the whys and wherefores of the skip bid warning. Many of the mini lessons before the game are about laws, rules, and proprieties. They like these lessons as much if not more as ones about play of the hand and bidding. We have a joke here that goes "Why do we use the stop card in Pinehurst? " "So we can bid before the opponent passes!" Most of our players place the stop card on the table, bid, wait for 10 seconds and pick up the card. . If they use the stop card, they use it *all the time* or not at all. If beginners are able to learn these little tools, they are on their way to learn about bidding in tempo, hesitations, etc. Most Directors will allow beginners too much slack in playing to the time requirement, allow hesitations, and other things that cause players problems when they move into stronger games where all the rules, more or less, are enforced and then try to figure out why these players are uncomfortable in the "big" game. It is really because we haven't taught them how to conduct themselves in the game...novice or expert. When the expert points these things out to them, they are embarrassed and hurt, and after the game go home and never come back!!!! Now we are finding out how hard it is "to teach an old dog new tricks". We cannot expect Tournament Directors be strict about rules that we as club directors are not willing to enforce. In reference to Linda's comment about the 5 variables in playing area, we must indeed add the director!!! A huge reason why new players are terrified to come to our games. Someone might have to call this person to the table and if he/she does turn out to be an ogre, they can't get out of there fast enough. I have lost students after their first venture into a real game due to the obnoxious director call and the obnoxious director that answered the call! Sorry to be so windy. Nancy THE SKIP BID WARNING The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge permit the Sponsoring Organization of a tournament to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with the Laws. Accordingly the ACBL Handbook contains several such regulations, designed to make tournaments more pleasant and to avoid unfortunate incidents. One such regulation is the skip bid warning. The Handbook states: "Players should (may) , in order to protect their rights, announce in advance 'I am about to make a skip bid, please wait' whenever their bid skips two or more levels of bidding. If the announcement is made, the next player must hesitate about ten seconds before calling". The regulation does not differentiate between strong bids or pre-emptive bids as long as a bid by-passes a level of bidding, it is a skip bid. A great many players are under the misapprehension that the skip bid warning should only be used for pre-emptive bids. This is contrary to the regulation, for it introduces a "two-way" skip bid, alerting partner to the fact that any skip bid preceded by the warning is pre-emptive. The warning is to used for every skip bid, irrespective of the strength of the bid. One example will serve to demonstrate the usefulness of the skip bid warning. South deals and West picks up a fair hand. While he is trying to make up his mind whether or not to open the bidding, the dealer pre-empts with three diamonds. Obviously, West will have to take a different course and he is going to require some time to consider his action. Equally obvious, the hesitation made necessary by the skip bid conveys information to his partner. Finally, West and North pass, and it is up to East in the pass-out seat. He has ten or eleven points in scattered high cards, but he knows he is not facing a near yarborough. If East elects to make a take-out double and it gets passed around to West, he has fielder's choice. With a balanced hand and an opening bid in high cards, West can convert to a penalty double, or take a shot at three no-trump with a diamond stopper; with a distributional hand, he can show it with a minimum of danger. Let's see what would have happened had South employed the skip bid warning. The ten second mandatory hesitation would give West time to think without telling partner that he had something to think about. Now any action East took would be at his own risk. At unfavorable vulnerability, he might well think twice before reopening. Conversely, if South opens three diamonds without using the skip bid warning and West passes like a flash, East can assume that West has no problem. The only reason can be that West has a relatively weak hand, so East will be considerably more conservative about reopening the bidding. The skip bid warning is not a panacea for all hesitation ills, but it does prevent the player from being put in an awkward position after a skip bid. Therefore, it is to everyone's benefit to see that it is observed by all. While a player is not forced to announce that he is about to make a skip bid, failure to do so may deprive him of protection, should LHO hesitate after pre-emptive action. It may also deprive him of possible score adjustment should there be a fast double on his left. I cannot over-emphasize the importance of using the skip bid warning whenever a bid bypasses a level - be it an opening bid, an overcall, a rebid or response, strong or weak. Players who use the warning for one type of bid and not for another are in direct violation of both the letter and the spirit of the regulation. I would like to conclude by quoting Alvin Landy's statement when he discussed the regulation not very long ago: "It as been argued that the skip bid might be used to insure that partner is aware that you a made a jump bid and is therefore unfair to opponents. Maybe so but the good features far outweigh the bad. Besides, I can't remember the last time an opponent missed recognizing a jump bid, with or without the skip bid warning." From an article in the December 1967 Bulletin Written by Harry Goldwater Form C64/75 Printed in U.S.A. by ACBL ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Senior To: ; Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 12:49 PM Subject: Re: Stop card Can we do the same thing with the Alert card????? > I have always chosen to accept our zonal option not to use it because I am > somewhat forgetful and do not wish to be inconsistent in using it. It would > seem than any action not taken eliminates an opportunity for UI. Are the > opponents really to be considered so inattentive then cannot notice a jump > in the level of the bidding? Perhaps they deserve whatever poor result their > inattention produces, just as in any other area of the game. For myself, I > will accept what poor results my forgetfulness causes me...but I do not want > it to inadvertantly wound my opponents or give UI to my partner. I feel this > is best accomplished by eliminating the stop card from my game. I would > agree with your position. I think, however, such a change should be > accompanied by education that a hesitation is required over such a bid, > which many poorer players do not understand even when the card is used. > > Craig > > -----Original Message----- > From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 11:28 AM > Subject: Stop card > snipped> >>I think zonal organisations should enforced their regulation concerning normal > >break in tempo after any skip bid (stop or not), and put education effort on this. Absolutely!!! > >I yould appreciate your opinion before sending a letter > >to ACBL Bulletin editor. > > > >Laval Du Breuil > >Quebec City > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 23:44:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:44:13 +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 XAA26214 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:44:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-210.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.210]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00122 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:43:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384F9161.CBF691B2@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 12:24:17 +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: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19991208120232.00842730@mail.maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 12:57 PM 12/8/99 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> The ACBL used to have a rule that a weak 2-bid had to be at least 5 HCP; > >> this was changed because of an argument by Marty Bergen that it didn't make > >> sense to limit judgment on hands like the one above. > >> > > > >OK, but as long as that rule existed, I was right in not > >asking if it could be 4. > > Quite right. But, was the rule legal: Does the ACBL have the right to > create rules which prohibit the use of judgment in hand evaluation? > > Tim I don't want to answer the question whether they have that right, but I will answer one other question : Provided the ACBL have the right to prohibit the use of systems that allow light openings - do they have the right to define light openings? The answer to that one is clearly a yes : Definition of light opening : a call that can be made on a hand that would, in HCP counting, be worth 4HCP or less. I see nothing wrong with that. As I said, I am not answering the question whether or not the ACBL (or anyone) has the right to prohibit light openings. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 23:43:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:43:56 +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 XAA26203 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:43:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-210.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.210]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29981 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:43:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384F9161.CBF691B2@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 12:24:17 +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: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19991208120232.00842730@mail.maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 12:57 PM 12/8/99 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> The ACBL used to have a rule that a weak 2-bid had to be at least 5 HCP; > >> this was changed because of an argument by Marty Bergen that it didn't make > >> sense to limit judgment on hands like the one above. > >> > > > >OK, but as long as that rule existed, I was right in not > >asking if it could be 4. > > Quite right. But, was the rule legal: Does the ACBL have the right to > create rules which prohibit the use of judgment in hand evaluation? > > Tim I don't want to answer the question whether they have that right, but I will answer one other question : Provided the ACBL have the right to prohibit the use of systems that allow light openings - do they have the right to define light openings? The answer to that one is clearly a yes : Definition of light opening : a call that can be made on a hand that would, in HCP counting, be worth 4HCP or less. I see nothing wrong with that. As I said, I am not answering the question whether or not the ACBL (or anyone) has the right to prohibit light openings. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 10 23:44:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA26225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:44:14 +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 XAA26215 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:44:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-210.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.210]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00132 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:43:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <384F9287.853B275B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 12:29:11 +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: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "David J. Grabiner" wrote: > > > >OK, but as long as that rule existed, I was right in not > >asking if it could be 4. > > However, the rule was explicitly changed from "cannot open on 4" to "cannot > agree to open on 4." > Which is in theory more correct. If I open on 4, and explain that I have miscounted, this should be allowed. However, the TD can choose to disbelieve me, and rule that I had in fact agreed to open on 4 but decided to hide this from opponents and directors. The regulation must indeed read "agree to" in order to conform to L40. But I don't believe it makes much difference in ruling. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 00:26:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 00:26:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA26385 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 00:26:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:25:16 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991210082056.00856970@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:20:56 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Richard Willey wrote: >>I'm not sure that you understand my position. >>I want to publicize this entire affair in as prominent a manner as >>possible. >> >>The entire reason to violate the rules is to attempt to provoke just >>this type reaction from the authorities. Richard, How about you and I play in an event early next year while playing opening one bids with a range of 7-12? We'll hope a hand with a good sic-card suit and 7 HCP comes up early so that the director will be called. We can appeal the ruling, getting our protest on record, and take the case as high as possible. In the meantime, we will of course, change our methods to 8-12 HCP opening bids to conform with ACBL regulations. This is a serious offer to Richard. I post it here to see if this proposal receives the same negative reaction as Richard's original suggestion. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 00:54:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 00:54:03 +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 AAA26485 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 00:53:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25209 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:53:45 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199912101353.IAA25209@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:53:44 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <0.4bb3e2d3.2581d380@aol.com> from "Schoderb@aol.com" at Dec 9, 99 10:54:40 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 Schoderb@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 12/9/99 7:59:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, > FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM writes: > > > Civil disobedience has always had the potential consequence of > > inconveniencing[2] the protestors. either in the short term or the long > > term. It seems some of us are willing to be so inconvenienced. > > > What, no signs, posters, sit-ins? Get real. Why not try intelligent > argument? Is there any reason to believe that anyone's listening? When people are willing to go to extra-ordinary lengths such as has been advocated in this thread there's strong reason to believe that something is broken. And condescending posts such as yours with ZERO actual content are not advancing the situation at all. An explanation of how the Laws give the ACBL to have such regulations and an explanation of why the ACBL feels it neccessary to have such regulations would advance the situation. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 01:16:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:16:19 +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 BAA26575 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:16:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA04663; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:15:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJCAGFQKSC001RXF@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:15:26 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:15:26 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:15:25 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Logical alternative To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2C4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As far as I know we, the Netherlands, don't follow the description as given. Don't ask me what we do then. There is at least one member of our national AC reading these messages: Con Holscherer, may be he has the answer. My impression is that most countries are less generous than 1 out of 4 and come close to what I think the CofP is saying. ton (by the way, I put a new battery in my computer to be in real time again. Do you need a similar action? Your message was sent 20 hours ago.) -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Verzonden: donderdag 9 december 1999 18:10 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Logical alternative It may be that some places will change their definitions of this with the promulgation of the WBF CoP. However, it has been suggested to me that it is time we reviewed what is the basis in various parts of the world. In my view, players of similar ability playing similar methods are considered: an LA is a call or play that: GBritain At least three out of ten would choose Denmark and Sweden More than an insignificant minority would choose ACBL and the Netherlands A number would at least consider seriously Rest of the World At least one out of four would choose Please let me know whether you feel this is correct for your country. The more the merrier! Note that the new CoP wording is: A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+1 one day late] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 01:26:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:26:25 +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 BAA26623 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:26:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26680 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:26:08 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199912101426.JAA26680@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:26:08 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Dec 10, 99 02:29:31 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: > > We have just banned a man for ten years for cheating. You are saying > that a different from of cheating is acceptable? I don't see how you get to cheating. He's advocating a principled attempt to make the ACBL have its reulations conform to the Laws of bridge. If you feel that the ACBL is in fact already doing so - then saying so - and why - would be helpful. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 01:43:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:43:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26710 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:43:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:42:20 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991210093801.0084c9e0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:38:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <384F9161.CBF691B2@village.uunet.be> References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19991208120232.00842730@mail.maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:24 PM 12/9/99 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Provided the ACBL have the right to prohibit the use of >systems that allow light openings - do they have the right >to define light openings? > >The answer to that one is clearly a yes : Why is this clearly "yes"? The Laws say that a Zonal organization may regulate opening one bids which may be made on "a hand of a king or more below average strength." The Laws don't say Zonal organizations may regulate based on other evaluation techniques. >Definition of light opening : a call that can be made on a >hand that would, in HCP counting, be worth 4HCP or less. > >I see nothing wrong with that. > >As I said, I am not answering the question whether or not >the ACBL (or anyone) has the right to prohibit light >openings. The answer to that one is clearly "yes". Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 02:19:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:19:56 +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 CAA27015 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:19:48 +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 KAA21407; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:19:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA105229175; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:19:36 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA054249174; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:19:34 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:19:23 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Stop card Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, ltrent@home.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 CAA27016 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It just boggles my mind that this is the only game I know of that I can play that I don't even need to bother learning the rules. Bridge's problems are much more serious than whether or not we have a Stop Card. Linda [Laval Dubreuil] You are right. Stop card is just the top of the iceberg. Many club players do not know basic bridge rules and "hate" them. I try to sell the message that this game is unplayable without rules an invite some players to try a "no rules" game against me (with money). More seriously, I think some club managers are partly responsible of this situation. They think they must tolerate anything to keep their customers. Players use to play this way and do not change their bad habbits when going to an other club or to tournaments. These managers make a bad calculation. In my club, founded 5 years ago, I clearly stated that the rules apply, and I tell players to call TD each time something happens to the table. We have one of the biggest club around (about 30 tables) and I think it is partly because players know the game is fair and rules apply the same way to everybody. My wife and I try to rule smoothly, but without deviating from Laws and regulations. We also print and distribute articles explaining rules (last week it was on communication between partners: poker-face). But changing bad habbits is a long road. If we should go further, we would have to give a lot of procedural penalties, and then I am also affraid to kill my club, because we would be the only club around applying Law 90 (I have never seen such a penalty last 30 years). I think we need help from zonal organisations to educate players about rules. Why not having seminars on basic rules and etiquette during regional and sectional tournaments, with financial support of zonal orgnisations. Some years ago, ACBL made a successfull effort on bridge teaching. It is time now to do something about rules teaching. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 02:28:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:28:41 +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 CAA27058 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:28:31 +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 KAA21501; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:28:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA111579694; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:28:14 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA056599693; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:28:13 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:28:03 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Stop card Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, grabiner@wcnet.org 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 CAA27059 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I would guess the percentages at club and serious event level were as >follows: > Club Event >People who use the stop card > before any jump bid 92% 99% > before nearly any jump bid 4% 1% > only before weak bids 0% 0% In the US, even players who do use the stop card rarely use it later in the auction; it's very rare to see someone pull the stop card on an auction like 1S-3S-4NT, or ...-4NT-5H-6S, or even 1NT-3NT. I do use it, but few players honor it on an auction like 1NT-3NT on which it is very rare for anyone to bid. What is the situation in the rest of the world? [Laval Dubreuil] In my club, the other clubs I play and tournaments around Quebec City and Montreal, I have never seen players use the stop card when opening 2N or 3N, or on basic auctions like 1N-3N. Strangly, most of the time, stop card is use on preempts... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 02:45:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:45:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27176 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:45:21 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id f.0.49944779 (4211); Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:44:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.49944779.258279c6@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:44:06 EST Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods To: Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca, 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 12/10/99 8:55:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: > And condescending posts such as yours with ZERO actual content are > not advancing the situation at all. > > An explanation of how the Laws give the ACBL to have such regulations > and an explanation of why the ACBL feels it neccessary to have > such regulations would advance the situation. > Sorry, RJN, I thought that suggesting intelligent argument in place of "civil disobedience" was somewhat above ZERO and not condescending. Perhpas too cryptic for your liking, but Breaking the Laws/Rules of our game is not my bag. I'll be glad to offer my thoughts on why we are where we are in the ACBL. Law 80 (particularly section F) exists for the purpose of allowing Sponsoring Organizations to tailor the Laws to their specific circumstances. At one time there was a group which felt it was "fun" to violate their conventional agreeemnts, BY PRIOR AGREEMENT against weaker players. Weak two bids with 4 or 5 cards and/or zero points in the suit was an example. Somehow they never got into trouble because they were sensitive to the anything goes philosophy of their agreements. Coming up against a pair of nice innocent smiling old people they were overheard to say, "anything goes at this table." When the little old man said "we play Fishbein" there was a quickly whispered comment of "signals are off." I can assure you that the they played a very much more structured game when they were up against perceived strong players. When the ACBL published a Rule about the high card points and number of cards for weak two bids (which was their forte), they were attempting to stop this kind of garbage. However, the Laws Commission of the ACBL told them they couldn't regulate judgement. The Rule went away. Should the WBF find ACBL in violation of the Laws, there are established ways for this to be brought to their attention. Further, the ACBL Laws Commission should remain vigilant to the Lawfulness of ACBL Board Actions. For those in ACBL land, there are numerous ways to be heard. Letters to the Editor of the ACBL Bulletin, letters to the District Directors, Board of Directors, Board of Governors, League President, CEO, articles in other bridge publications,etc. All these are available to effect changes, and have been successfully used in the past (ala "No spades partner vis-a-vis WBF, or the demise of the weak two bid rule in ACBL). Violating established Rules is not the way I advocate that our game should ever be played. When I sit down to play, I accept the extant Rules at that time. Working to get them changed is not my purpose in bidding and/or play - that is reserved for other, and more direct, efforts which do not involve breaking the Rules/Laws. Much remains to be done, and I applaud legal efforts in that direction. Opening doors to intentional violation of the Rules can only demean the game and the individual in the long run. I hope you find more than ZERO actual content and condescending in the above. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 02:47:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:47:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27196 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:47:38 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id f.0.f36bb5fb (4211); Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:46:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.f36bb5fb.25827a6a@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:46:50 EST Subject: Re: Stop card To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, ltrent@home.com 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 12/10/99 10:22:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes: > We have one of the biggest > club around (about 30 tables) and I think it is partly because > players > know the game is fair and rules apply the same way to everybody. I've seen this in other clubs. You are 100% correct in what you are doing. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 02:54:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:36:07 +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 CAA27090 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:35:51 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA02910 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:35:07 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:35 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > I don't care what the reason is: I just do not like it. I have never > seen that breaking Laws in a way that benefits yourself is an acceptable > method of protest. > Since opening a 9hcp NT in the ACBL leads to an automatic score adjustment I don't see how breaking the law would benefit Richard - providing he makes opponents aware that he has done so and that they should call the TD. If he doesn't inform opponents then his protest may well be invisible and rather pointless. I very much doubt that his actions will have any effect on the ACBL (so long as they stick to score adjustments) but were they to publicly accuse him of cheating I could see an interesting lawsuit developing. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 03:48:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:48:08 +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 DAA27546 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:47:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.55]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA21723 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:47:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <385101CC.6E94F8E4@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:36:12 +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: Stop card References: <01bf42b3$952e9360$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > I'm in the business of educating players to do the right thing and I do > think that > stop cards are a good thing, but only when used correctly. > When I am about to make a skip bid, I put the stop card to my left, facing > my > LHO, and if it's a player that I know does not observe the regulation > normally, I > say, "do you mind "stopping" for 10 seconds to give my partner time to > think?" > This is usually a big surprise. Players think that the whole purpose of a > stop > card is to draw attention to the skip, they may think it's to avoid UI, but > they > rarely consider that UI is available when they have no points. Rather than > suggest they are making life easier for their own partner (they wouldn't do > that would they?) it makes them feel good when you are asking them to do > your side a favour. Well you are suggesting that you partner is mentally > slow > aren't you! Surprisingly a lot of the LOLs of my experience are happy to > help, > and they do continue the practice at other tables, even repeating the > wording > of my request to others :-) > Anne Great idea. I too have had problems like someone else wrote. Partner makes a skip bid (with a stop card) and RHO calls immediately. I have no time to think and I end up giving UI. It has occured to me that the stop card is useful in this manner as well. But it has never occured to me that I can use it to explain to opponents why they should wait. However, if opponents are BL's, intent on having you communicate as much UI as possible, maybe this will encourage them to bid fast! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 03:56:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:36:25 +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 CAA27115 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:36:17 +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 KAA21609; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:35:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA115950157; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:35:58 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA058950156; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:35:56 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:35:50 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Stop card Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, fxmgs@aurora.uaf.edu 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 CAA27116 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk But another good reason I like to see the Stop Card used and obeyed is that when partner makes a skip bid, I usually also need the time to decide on my call. If my RHO calls too quickly, I am put in an awkward tempo situation. signoff Michael Schmahl, aka "Mike", alias "Mike", dba "Mike" - Univ of AK, Fairbanks [Laval Dubreuil] I also think regulations concerning the obligation to wait 10 sec. after any skip bid should be enforced, for the reasons above, but without this Stop card that can be use to exchange UI with partner. Laval Du Breuil From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 04:10:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:36:09 +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 CAA27091 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:35:51 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA02918 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:35:07 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:35 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > The whole approach is wrong. Just go through all the possibilities, > deciding whether they are likely or at all probable, then decide. It is > not right to go through looking for a single trail: that means you are > not following the Laws. However, if on the given hand you determine that a double of 2C was 90% probable then surely any "likely" or "at all probable" score must be based on a pathway that started out with 2C being doubled. If you arrive at the table and hear: Sound player East "I wouldn't have protected if..." Sound player West "It wouldn't have come to that because I would have doubled 2C" I would be surprised if you felt that the double was less than 90% probable. Of course if West is a weak player you may judge differently. In any event it seems legitimate to question West as to his possible actions over 2C. Were I West (delete the word sound if that helps) I would feel ethically bound to volunteer to the TD that I was certain to double 2C. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 05:00:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA27871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:43:39 +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 EAA27862 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:43:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from p57s13a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.173.88] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11wCmv-00004q-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:15:53 +0000 Message-ID: <005801bf4335$c31c4240$58ad93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:32:02 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ltrent@home.com ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 10 December 1999 04:05 Subject: Re: Stop card >In a message dated 12/9/99 5:05:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, ltrent@home.com >writes: > >> It just boggles my mind that this is the only >> game I know of that I can play that I don't even need to bother learning >the >> rules> .............................. \x/ .................... > >Could a good education program make the card unnecessary? Of course, > +=+ Well said, Bill. Do I understand we have a volunteer to write a software program on the procedures and ethics of the game. What a valuable contribution. [:-))] ~G~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 05:01:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA27980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 05:01:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com [139.134.5.174]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA27975 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 05:01:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ia688072 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:51:15 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-144.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.144]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Temperate-MailRouter V2.6h 9/1150906); 11 Dec 1999 03:51:14 Message-ID: <01d801bf4336$f0fef940$90df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:49:43 +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 Kojak wrote: >Breaking the Laws/Rules of our game is not my bag. >I'll be glad to offer my thoughts on why we are where we are in the ACBL. >Law 80 (particularly section F) exists for the purpose of allowing Sponsoring >Organizations to tailor the Laws to their specific circumstances. At one >time there was a group which felt it was "fun" to violate their conventional >agreeemnts, BY PRIOR AGREEMENT against weaker players. Weak >two bids with 4 or 5 cards and/or zero points in the suit was an example. >Somehow they never >got into trouble because they were sensitive to the anything goes philosophy >of their agreements. Coming up against a pair of nice innocent smiling old >people they were overheard to say, "anything goes at this table." When the >little old man said "we play Fishbein" there was a quickly whispered comment >of "signals are off." I can assure you that the they played a very much more >structured game when they were up against perceived strong players. When the >ACBL published a Rule about the high card points and number of cards for weak >two bids (which was their forte), they were attempting to stop this kind of >garbage. However, the Laws Commission of the ACBL told them they couldn't >regulate judgement. The Rule went away. Should the WBF find ACBL in >violation of the Laws, there are established ways for this to be brought to >their attention. Further, the ACBL Laws Commission should remain vigilant to >the Lawfulness of ACBL Board Actions. For those in ACBL land, there are >numerous ways to be heard. Letters to the Editor of the ACBL Bulletin, >letters to the District Directors, Board of Directors, Board of Governors, >League President, CEO, articles in other bridge publications,etc. All these >are available to effect changes, and have been successfully used in the past >(ala "No spades partner vis-a-vis WBF, or the demise of the weak two bid rule >in ACBL). Violating established Rules is not the way I advocate that our game >should ever be played. When I sit down to play, I accept the extant Rules at >that time. Working to get them changed is not my purpose in bidding and/or >play - that is reserved for other, and more direct, efforts which do not >involve breaking the Rules/Laws. Much remains to be done, and I applaud >legal efforts in that direction. Opening doors to intentional violation of >the Rules can only demean the game and the individual in the long run. Yes, hear, hear. I hope everyone agrees. A niggling thought remains. At Lille in the World Pairs Final, the WBF (not you) did not follow Law 88, when they awarded pairs less than 60%. They really had no option, for L88 is surely insane in that it prevents equity being restored in such circumstances. This has been discussed in another thread, but nobody except me seems to think that L88 should be changed. Is this really the way the world is: the governing body can intentionally disregard a Law if they want to, the players can't, and the disregarded Law should remain there for the next time the same problem occurs? I know you wrote that "much remains to be done". I am concerned that if the WBF intentionally were to violate L88, then an American might decide to intentionally violate another Law or rule. The WBF, if it intentionally disregards a Law, is doing the right thing, but the individual is cheating. I guess I am naive, for I do not fully understand the difference. Or have I misunderstood something? Peter Gill Trembling a bit, Sydney, Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 05:07:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 05:07:42 +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 FAA28012 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 05:07:34 +1100 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id KAA14440 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:07:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA17721; 10 Dec 99 10:07:12 -0800 Date: 10 Dec 99 10:04:00 -0800 Message-Id: <199912101007.AA17721@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk kojak wrote: > What, no signs, posters, sit-ins? Get real. Why not try intelligent > argument? > kojak I would welcome suggestions (not involving civil disobedience) that would have the ACBL's Laws Committee consider and pronounce on the legality of an ACBL regulation. AFAIK, the only avenue available for _hoi polloi_ is to exhaust other avenues of appeal. Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, California {ACBL District 21} From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 05:10:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 05:10:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.192.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA28033 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 05:10:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-4-108.access.net.il [213.8.4.108] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04618; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:06:26 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3851421A.F8BB0A9B@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:10:34 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Kooijman, A." CC: "'ac342@freenet.carleton.ca'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am not sure I understood "the roots" of Ton's quiz , but : When we adjust score I remember FIRST of FIRST that the scope of the laws is EQUITY...!!!!!!! Maybe this should be the right formulation of law 12C2 but I don't think the scope of those wording is "to punish" any side . It is very difficult to decide what is the right decision without being there but I see only two reasonable alternatives: A. To let the score stand or B. To adjust to 3Cl-1 I don't believe that 2Cl-3 by N-S would be a reasonable score.......maybe Dany Kooijman, A. wrote: > > This is a perfect candidate for the yearly to be organized Christmas puzzle > in BLML-land. What is the worst decision taken? > You may choose: > > 1) Playing with this North > 2) Using a convention in which a weak hand has to make a reverse call > 3) Not reaching 4 hearts > 4) Balancing with 2 diamonds > 5) The TD decision > 6) The AC decision > > We will pick a winner among the majority voters > > The prize is being allowed not to read BLML for one week. Eventually > curiosity wins. > > ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca [mailto:ac342@freenet.carleton.ca] > Verzonden: donderdag 9 december 1999 7:42 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 > > I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm > just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. > Tony (aka ac342) > Matchpoints > Board 15 S QJT S W N E > Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P > NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D > C 54 2H P P P > S 9652 S K8 > H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not alerted > D Q63 D T982 > C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS > S A743 > H A9852 Before the opening lead, South > D 74 informed the opps that there > C Q8 had been a failure to alert > 2C. > EW called the director. > The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an > artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S > would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). > Away from the table, W said that had he been properly informed, he would not > have balanced; East claimed that he would have doubled clubs. The director > told the players to play the hand out. After a result was obtained, EW > asked the director to review the hand. The director decided: > result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result > had the irregularity not occured; > NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that > was at all probable. > NS appealed. The committee upheld the director's ruling; there was some > thought to adjusting EW to +300, but they decided to keep the result as > it was. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 05:19:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:36:09 +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 CAA27093 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:35:52 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA02935 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:35:08 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:35 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Stop card 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: <0.327353cf.2581d0f3@aol.com> Kojak wrote: > I > shudder to think what the IOC would think if they had an inkling of how > really poorly our players are informed of the structure of the game. > I'm not talking about penalties, I'm talking about the structure of how > we are supposed to play bridge. Why should they worry. In any popular participation game (rugby, football, cricket, basketball etc) the masses compete in blissful ignorance of the more arcane rules. Even in "simpler" games like squash and tennis I doubt most players pay huge amounts of attention (how often are foot-faults noticed in club tennis?). It should be of concern to the IOC if top players operate in ignorance of the rules (not a big problem for Bridge). At the club level it might be better to focus on "How does the presence/enforcement of the laws affect the popularity of the game." I would support the idea of an education programme around the stop card because I believe that, after initial grumbling, players would find it makes the game better - not because I care about the opinion of some corrupt bunch of old men who don't even dare tackle drugs-related cheating in an effective way. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 05:29:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:32:46 +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 DAA27362 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:32:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ea687808 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:26:29 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-144.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.144]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Shocking-MailRouter V2.6h 9/1144672); 11 Dec 1999 02:26:28 Message-ID: <000301bf432b$19d66940$90df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:00:37 +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 Tony Edwards wrote: >I talked with some of the players (and one of the directors) who were in >Boston. They did not seem very happy with the tournament conditions, >and I'm not talking about the regulations! What was going on? >(If we need a law reference for this gossip, perhaps L81B1 and L81C3?) At the AGM of our bridge club in Sydney tonight, I asked several of the Australians for their impressions of their trip to Boston. These comments summarise the feelings of the small group of people sampled: - the Alerts Procedure over there is absolutely shocking. - regarding Stop Cards, pretty much nobody cared. Almost everyone paid no attention and tried to apply commonsense instead. After 1NT- 3NT, most people removed the stop card almost straight away instead of waiting 10 seconds. - contrary to my pre-conceived ideas, most Americans were really nice to play against, very pleasant... - the conditions of play were fine, although it was a little bit hot. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 05:44:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 05:44:50 +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 FAA28156 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 05:44:41 +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 NAA12780 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:44:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA27400 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:44:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:44:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912101844.NAA27400@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Stop card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Tennis is another game in which players know the rules and abide by > them. Everyone joining the USTA is given a condensed version of the > rules of the game, and are expected to follow them. It would be awfully hard to do the same thing for bridge. No doubt that's part of the problem. The Laws are written in a form that's reasonably convenient for TD's but very hard for players to use. The Bridge World suggested a major change (for other reasons). Put all the laws dealing with normal procedures and the proprieties in one section, and put the laws dealing with irregularities in a different section. Players would have to know only the first, fairly short, section. This change would be a lot of work for the LC and probably even more for TD's who would have to learn all over again where to find the laws they need, but in the long run, it might be worth the trouble. I suppose an alternative is simply to extract the "laws for players" from the existing lawbook and publish them separately. That might be an interesting exercise for someone who has an electronic copy of the complete laws. I bet it wouldn't take more than an hour or two. The case with ACBL regulations is far worse. There is, as far as I can tell, *no single source* that lists all the regulations players are "supposed" to know and abide by. The convention rules and alert rules are available on the ACBL web site and via some (poorly distributed) leaflets and pamphlets, but the "miscellaneous regulations" -- things like stop card use, agreements over opponents infractions, opening 1NT with a singleton, and other pronouncements -- are either not available or are scattered and hard to find. The ACBL needs the equivalent of the EBU "Orange Book" with _all_ the player regulations in one place. It could be a chapter of the ACBL Handbook or something else (and certainly could be on the web site). Then people could see what the regulations are, and perhaps more important, could be sure that any alleged regulation not found in the official document is not in effect. How can players be expected to follow the rules if there is no easy way for them to find out what the rules are? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 06:27:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:36:09 +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 CAA27092 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:35:52 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA02926 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:35:08 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:35 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 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: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) wrote: > I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm > just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. > Tony (aka ac342) > Matchpoints > Board 15 S QJT S W N E > Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P > NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D > C 54 2H P P P > S 9652 S K8 > H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not > alerted > D Q63 D T982 > C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS > S A743 > H A9852 Before the opening lead, > South > D 74 informed the opps that > there > C Q8 had been a failure to > alert 2C. > EW called the director. > The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an > artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S > would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). You know the standards of the players concerned. Personally if the players are of moderate standard I would regard it as automatic for West to double 2C and highly unlikely that South would not compete to 3H (given that his partner would bid 2S with a minimum he has already shown a desire to be there). Indeed NS competing to 4H makes it onto my "at all probable" list and since North apparently found a line for 9 tricks then 4H-1 NS-100 would qualify for consideration. However would North still find the losing line absent the (now unlikely) 2D bid from East? I don't know - this last bit seems close. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 06:37:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 06:37:11 +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 GAA28371 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 06:37:03 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id v.0.4e9f5489 (5774); Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:36:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.4e9f5489.2582b030@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:36:16 EST Subject: Re: Stop card 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 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 12/10/99 1:21:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk writes: > It should be of concern to the > IOC if top players operate in ignorance of the rules (not a big problem > for Bridge). Thank you for your thoughts besides this one. Here I can't agree with you. In my experience there is an abysmal lack of knowledge and understanding of the Laws by top level players. I even remember one of the highest ranked players in the world, upon being appointed to the ACBL Laws Commission proposing a Law be written to cover what was already clearly within the Laws!!! He was only mildly chagrined when this was pointed out to him. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 06:45:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:48:06 +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 DAA27545 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:47:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-24-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.24.55]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA21710 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:47:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3850FF33.97DE4CAB@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:25:07 +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: Stop card References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Laval wrote: > > > > >I also think the Stop card would be eliminated, and > >I have no in my bidding box. I think zonal organisations > >should enforced their regulation concerning normal > >break in tempo after any skip bid (stop or not), and > >put education effort on this. > > I don't agree. > >I yould appreciate your opinion before sending a letter > >to ACBL Bulletin editor. > > In my view the ACBL need to get it right somehow. One of the reasons > I find what you are saying so difficult is that over here the players > are required to use the stop card, leave it out until some time has > past, and not bid before it is removed nor before a reasonable time has > elapsed. > Indeed players need to be educated. As with anything, it takes some time for them to get it right. I agree that this takes a little longer with stop procedure, but we must persevere. > I would guess the percentages at club and serious event level were as > follows: > > Club Event > People who use the stop card > before any jump bid 92% 99% > before nearly any jump bid 4% 1% > only before weak bids 0% 0% > The english have always been known for correct following of procedure. The percentages are far lower over here. However, I need to stress that there is only one correct stop procedure: use before every skip bid, or opening at 2-level or higher, and leave it for 10 seconds. LHO should act as if he is thinking those full 10 seconds, and make his call immediately after the stop is removed. He should ask his questions in this period, and if the asking and answering takes too long, the skip bidder should add some time to his skip period. I notice there are other procedures out there, such as taking away the stop immediately, but this puts the burden of counting to ten seconds on the person who is supposed to be thinking! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 06:57:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 06:40:48 +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 GAA28404 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 06:40:40 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id v.0.4995a8ee (5774); Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:39:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.4995a8ee.2582b0e4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:39:16 EST Subject: Re: Stop card 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 12/10/99 1:49:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > The ACBL needs the equivalent of the EBU "Orange Book" with _all_ > the player regulations in one place. It could be a chapter of the > ACBL Handbook or something else (and certainly could be on the web > site). Then people could see what the regulations are, and perhaps > more important, could be sure that any alleged regulation not found > in the official document is not in effect. > > How can players be expected to follow the rules if there is no easy > way for them to find out what the rules are? Hear, Hear. I hope you are sending this on to ACBL - Memphis. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 07:01:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:01:47 +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 HAA28489 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:01:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA27017; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:01:25 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <385101CC.6E94F8E4@village.uunet.be> References: <01bf42b3$952e9360$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:41:22 -0500 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Stop card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:36 PM +0100 12/10/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >I too have had problems like someone else wrote. Partner >makes a skip bid (with a stop card) and RHO calls >immediately. I have no time to think and I end up giving >UI. A possible solution in this situation is to call the director. If the opponent has given "bad" UI, as by a quick pass over an opening 3H, this may be justified. Over an opening 2NT, I wouldn't call the director if the skip-bid warning had been ignord. Otherwise, the proper correction is probably that the skip-bid responsibility passes to the next player; you should hesitate ten seconds to avoid giving partner UI. This may or may not be sanctioned by the laws and regulations. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 07:17:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:17:22 +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 HAA28552 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:17:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA00757; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:14:27 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <011801bf42bd$3fc83200$d5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com><001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080 @isi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:09:55 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 7:10 PM -0800 12/9/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >So opening a 9 HCP weak notrump, announced to the opponents as a >routine 9-12, is cheating? I don't think so. Clarification: Cheating is only the *deliberate* violation of a regulation, with knowledge that what you are doing is wrong. This includes playing illegal conventions, although the ACBL's right to define some of these conventions may not be authorized. Most of the examples below are common problems, but not cheating as they normally occur >Cheating is disobeying Stop Card regulations, passing slowly with >strength and fast with weakness. How many players do this out of malice? (There are some players who don't understand how to use UI properly, making a bid which could be influenced by it and then claiming later that they would always bid it.) >Cheating is keeping one's CC in a >purse, or (as Danny Kleinman related to me recently) putting a false >CC on the table while keeping the real one in a pocket, so that >opponents have to reveal their interests in the auction or play, or >be deceived. Or having only one CC on the table, or putting it under the bidding box (which sometimes happens because of lack of space on the table), or havcing an incompletely-filled out CC. This regulation really should be enforced. But it is only cheating if it is done in order to gain an advantage. It is simple discourtesy to play with only one CC. I have encountered the false CC problem, when I tried to pick up East's CC, and found that it was the CC East played with someone else and was told by East that I should look at West's CC. This is another rule which needs to be enforced; a CC which is not being played and which is not simply a blank being used as a private score should not be on the table. >Cheating is discussing deals in front of weak pairs who >have yet to play them, to the detriment of the pairs they will face >later. This is almost never done deliberately, although it happens a lot by accident; I often sit down to play Board 25 and hear N-S still talking about Board 24. (Should N-S be penalized for this if it forces both sides to take average-plus when Board 24 comes up?) > Cheating is flopping one's "private" score open on the table >while writing a score, so that the opponents can see results of >hands they have yet to play. Few people even think about this as a problem. >Cheating is using up break time for >bidding and playing hands, gaining extra time and depriving others >of their breaks. Is it proper to take a late play rather than playing into a break if there are delays? Playing slowly is an infraction, and playing slowly when ordered to catch up is subject to penalty, but getting behind is not an infraction on its own; I've often been behind when the opponents arrived late, or when I had to wait five minutes to get a director's ruling. >Cheating is copping boards while walking to the >water cooler or restroom. Agreed. >Cheating is failing to provide a complete >description of one's partnership agreements, when asked to explain >an auction. Again, how often is this done out of malice? Most people think that "Forcing Stayman" is an acceptable explanation. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 07:38:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:38:54 +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 HAA28637 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:38:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from king.halcyon.com (bbo@king.halcyon.com [206.63.63.10]) by smtp10.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA21048; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:38:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA01363; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:38:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:38:36 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Nancy T Dressing cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Stop card In-Reply-To: <003b01bf42cb$94a68ac0$3f60040c@momsputer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > As a director/teacher who deals mainly with brand new players I find this > discussion very interesting. > They also learn about the stop card at the same time they are told how to > bid a suit, double redouble, and pass. Easy!! The stop card is in the > bid box. ... > If beginners are able to learn these little tools, they are on their way to > learn about bidding in tempo, hesitations, etc. If only all beginners were taught this way, then MAYBE in forty years, the bridge population will start obeying the regulations. But not until the current crop of 'experienced' players who pay no attention to the regulations have all died off. This assumes the new ones have not back-slidden in the meantime based on the current actions of their 'betters'. > THE SKIP BID WARNING ... > One such regulation is the skip bid warning. The Handbook states: > "Players should (may) , in order to protect their rights, announce in > advance 'I am about to make a skip bid, please wait' whenever their bid > skips [emphasis added] ***two or more levels*** of bidding. If the > announcement is made, the next player must hesitate about ten seconds > before calling". Well, make that one level of bidding! > While a player is not forced to announce that he is about to make a skip > bid, failure to do so may deprive him of protection, should LHO hesitate > after pre-emptive action. Nowadays, experienced players are supposed to hesitate even if the stop card is not used. How many do you know that do?? Richard B. Odlin ******************** Skip Bid Warnings 1. How and When Made Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding: a. When bidding orally by saying, "I am about to make a skip bid. Please wait!" b. When using bidding boxes, by placing the stop card so that LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is replaced in the bidding box. 2. Skip Bidder The skip bid warning may not be used to alert partner that a strength-showing bid is being made or not being made. The warning should be used all the time. The tournament director may assess a procedural penalty (Law 90) for failure to comply. 3. Opponents of Skip Bidder a. All Players When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most improper. b. Experienced Players Experienced players are expected to maintain proper tempo whether a skip bid is announced or not. 4. Questioning After a skip bid, players may ask questions but must still pause an appropriate amount of time for study. 5. Failure to Pause When a player acts with undue haste or hesitation, the tournament director may award an adjusted score (Law 16) and/or procedural penalty (Law 90). 6. Where Used The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. For sanctioned games at clubs, the club may elect to discourage its use and require no mandated pause. *************** From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 07:45:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:45:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28694 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:45:20 +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 PAA19644; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:45:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA27583; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:45:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:45:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912102045.PAA27583@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > highly unlikely that South would not compete to 3H > (given that his partner would bid 2S with a minimum he has already shown > a desire to be there). I am almost certain '2S' must have been a misprint in the original message. The normal way to play "reverse Drury" is that opener rebids his suit (i.e. 2H) with a sub-minimum opening. A rebid of 2S would, for most pairs, show genuine reversing values, although not necessarily spade length. The name "reverse Drury" is to distinguish from plain Drury, where a 2D bid shows the sub-minimum opening, and a rebid of opener's suit promises full opening values. Of course it's possible that the particular pair at the table was playing an unusual method. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 07:51:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:09:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from hopper.isi.com (hopper.isi.com [192.73.222.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA27279 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:09:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from karma.isi.com (karma.isi.com [192.73.222.42]) by hopper.isi.com (8.8.4/8.6.10) with ESMTP id IAA21163 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:08:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwilleypc (nash-dhcp-1 [128.224.193.30]) by karma.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id IAA01342 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:04:25 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:09:01 -0800 Message-ID: <001501bf4342$047d8260$1ec1e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991210082056.00856970@mail.maine.rr.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Richard, >How about you and I play in an event early next year while playing opening >one bids with a range of 7-12? We'll hope a hand with a good sic-card suit >and 7 HCP comes up early so that the director will be called. We can >appeal the ruling, getting our protest on record, and take the case as high >as possible. In the meantime, we will of course, change our methods to >8-12 HCP opening bids to conform with ACBL regulations. >This is a serious offer to Richard. I post it here to see if this proposal >receives the same negative reaction as Richard's original suggestion. The basic concept is fine with me. (BTW, I have recently moved to Nashua, New Hampshire, so scheduling a playing date should be relatively easy) To me, the big question is what aspect of the current regulations we should challenge. I had originally though to challenge based on the regulations surrounding 9 HCP 1N openings. In my mind, this regulation is by far the most iron clad regulation that the ACBL has imposed. This regulation also clearly contradicts expressed ACBL policy regarding the concept of a "deviation". As such, I think that it is the best target for a challenge. However, if you would prefer to base a Challenge on the regulations surround 8 HCP as a minimum opening hand that would be acceptable. My concern here is the following. The ACBL regulations about having agreements to open hands containing less that 8 HCP are based on line 6 in the Disallowed list under the GCC "Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)" Unlike the ACBL policy surrounding a 9 HCP 1N opening, there is no associated regulation banning the use of judgement to upgrade good 7 HCP hands. In fact, the concept of a "Deviation" would appear to allow opening appropriate 6 counts. (In the ACBL's own you be the judge column last month, I seem to recall that some ACBL approved participants were advocating opening a 7 count playing "standard". Given that the intent of a challenge is to thrown a monkey wrench into the current system, it would be best to do so in a manner in which the regulatory authority has very little "wriggle room". Richard Oh, I like my boss, he's a good friend of mine And that's why I'm starving out in the breadline Whenever I get all the money I earn The boss will be broke and to work he must turn Hallelujah! I'm a bum, Hallelujah bum again Hallelujah! give us sixpence for Christ's sake Amen From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 07:59:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:15:02 +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 HAA28538 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:14:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA00893; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:14:35 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:12:58 -0500 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:35 PM +0000 12/10/99, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: >> I don't care what the reason is: I just do not like it. I have never >> seen that breaking Laws in a way that benefits yourself is an acceptable >> method of protest. >Since opening a 9hcp NT in the ACBL leads to an automatic score adjustment >I don't see how breaking the law would benefit Richard - providing he >makes opponents aware that he has done so and that they should call the >TD. It isn't an automatic adjustment, because the ACBL interprets an implicit agreement not to be established until the second time it comes up. (This prevents penalties from being imposed for miscounted points. Under the old weak 2-bid rule, I beleive an adjustment was automatic if you were out of the allowed range.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 08:04:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA27950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:56:46 +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 EAA27942 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:56:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (dial69.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.69]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA24077; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:56:03 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <385101CC.6E94F8E4@village.uunet.be> References: <01bf42b3$952e9360$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <385101CC.6E94F8E4@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:56:44 -0500 To: Herman De Wael From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Stop card Cc: Bridge Laws Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:36 PM +0100 12/10/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >I too have had problems like someone else wrote. Partner >makes a skip bid (with a stop card) and RHO calls >immediately. I have no time to think and I end up giving >UI. I don't understand. Don't you have time between your call for the director and his finishing his explanation? I know we don't always call for the director when we should. I try to make a habit of it. I did not when I was younger, and we didn't use bidding boxes. As an experiment, in a sectional tournament in 1983 or so, I resolved to call the director every time the opponents failed to wait. The director, Maury Braunstein, was incensed. By my fourth director call that afternoon on the same issue he tried to get to the bottom of it. I was fortunate to be playing against opponents of exception honesty that round. Maury asked what I had said before my skip bid. They told him I'd said "I'm about to make a skip bid - please wait ten seconds." He asked what happened subsequently. My LHO explained that she had passed immediately. I have a lot more to say on this topic - I'll save it for another missive or two. -- Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 08:57:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:33:07 +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 DAA27369 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:32:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca687806 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:26:27 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-144.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.144]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Adolescent-MailRouter V2.6h 9/1144672); 11 Dec 1999 02:26:26 Message-ID: <000101bf432b$186e4dc0$90df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:33:04 +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 Nancy Dressing wrote: >As a director/teacher who deals mainly with brand new players I find this >discussion very interesting. >I start my novices with bid boxes, (they sometimes forget to use them and >bid aloud but after a few giggles they fall into the tempo of the bid box). >They also learn about the stop card at the same time they are told how to >bid a suit, double redouble, and pass. Easy!! The stop card is in the bid >box, isn't it? They learn to tap the alert card and say alert. They are >learning early in their careers how to manage the rules of bidding with and >without bid boxes.. They also receive a copy of the article below from the >ACBL Bulletin in 1967 explaining the whys and wherefores of the skip bid >warning. Many of the mini lessons before the game are about laws, rules, >and proprieties. They like these lessons as much if not more as ones about >play of the hand and bidding. >We have a joke here that goes "Why do we use the stop card in Pinehurst? " >"So we can bid before the opponent passes!" Most of our players place the >stop card on the table, bid, wait for 10 seconds and pick up the card. . If >they use the stop card, they use it *all the time* or not at all. >If beginners are able to learn these little tools, they are on their way to >learn about bidding in tempo, hesitations, etc. Most Directors will allow >beginners too much slack in playing to the time requirement, allow >hesitations, and other things that cause players problems when they move >into stronger games where all the rules, more or less, are enforced and then >try to figure out why these players are uncomfortable in the "big" game. It >is really because we haven't taught them how to conduct themselves in the >game...novice or expert. When the expert points these things out to them, >they are embarrassed and hurt, and after the game go home and never come >back!!!! Now we are finding out how hard it is "to teach an old dog new >tricks". We cannot expect Tournament Directors be strict about rules that >we as club directors are not willing to enforce. >In reference to Linda's comment about the 5 variables in playing area, we >must indeed add the director!!! A huge reason why new players are terrified >to come to our games. Someone might have to call this person to the table >and if he/she does turn out to be an ogre, they can't get out of there fast >enough. I have lost students after their first venture into a real game due >to the obnoxious director call and the obnoxious director that answered the >call! I found this extremely refreshing to read. I have heard of some bridge teachers in New Zealand, who include a special lesson "Bridge is a Special Game" in their Beginners' Lessons. One such ex-beginner, who has progressed rapidly, told me that she and her fellow beginners eagerly awaited this lesson, and they all absolutely loved the advice on ethics and Laws, presented with humour and personality. She is surprised that so many teachers do not do the same. I wonder how we can change the world so that instead of pockets of excellence, such teaching becomes the norm? >THE SKIP BID WARNING > >The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge permit the Sponsoring >Organization....*snip* Thanks for including this; it was interesting to those of us who experience such things only when we travel overseas. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 09:00:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 06:30:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28322 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 06:30:47 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 1.0.315c026c (5774); Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:29:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.315c026c.2582aeb3@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:29:55 EST Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods 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 12/10/99 1:03:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, GillP@bigpond.com writes: > I know you wrote that "much remains to be done". I am concerned > that if the WBF intentionally were to violate L88, then an American > might decide to intentionally violate another Law or rule. The WBF, > if it intentionally disregards a Law, is doing the right thing, but the > individual is cheating. I guess I am naive, for I do not fully understand > the difference. > > Or have I misunderstood something? > > Peter Gill It was decided to suspend the provisions of Law 88 for what I think were good and cogent reasons. The winning percentage for the World Pairs Championships is usually somewhere around 55 %. The "fix" that was made to the screwup resulted in some pairs having 12 boards they could not play. To give 60% on all 12 of these boards would have been highly unfair to the rest of the contestants. That is why, on these particular boards the provisions of Law 88 were deemed to not apply, and the players were given their percentage game. To my recollection this was done by the Executive Committee's action with WBFLC urging. I don't quite see this as comparable to an intentional violation of the Law. Rather, I see this as an interim ruling of the WBFLC (and Executive Committee approval) in an unforeseen circumstance and which will surely be modified in further publications of the Laws. It should be, and has been in my experience, a very rare situation, totally unforeseen, and not just a capricious "feels good" kind of thing. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 09:11:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA27872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:43:40 +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 EAA27861 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:43:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from p57s13a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.173.88] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11wCmw-00004q-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:15:54 +0000 Message-ID: <005901bf4335$c3b1cb80$58ad93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:38:51 -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: 10 December 1999 13:03 Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods >Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >> At 12:57 PM 12/8/99 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> The ACBL used to have a rule that a weak 2-bid had to be at least 5 HCP; >> >> this was changed because of an argument by Marty Bergen that it didn't make >> >> sense to limit judgment on hands like the one above. >> >> >> > >> >OK, but as long as that rule existed, I was right in not >> >asking if it could be 4. >> >> Quite right. But, was the rule legal: Does the ACBL have the right to >> create rules which prohibit the use of judgment in hand evaluation? >> +=+ Law 40 D gives unlimited power as soon as a partnership understanding is deemed to exist; as, for example, in the case of a habitual action or one that has been discussed. An isolated occasion is trickier if it can be argued successfully that there is no partnership understanding. [We are discussing initial action on hands of 8 HCP or less] +=+ > >I don't want to answer the question whether they have that >right, but I will answer one other question : > +=+ Abstemious. And a surprising answer considering its source. +=+ > >Provided the ACBL have the right to prohibit the use of >systems that allow light openings - do they have the right >to define light openings? > +=+ In respect of partnership understandings involving initial action a K or more less than average strength they can make whatever rules they wish. By the way, someone - a little while ago - was looking for a distinction between 'agreement' and 'partnership understanding'. The definition makes it clear they are the same thing. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 09:13:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:13:46 +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 JAA29064 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:13:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-30.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.30]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA31209; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:13:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007c01bf435b$ca689640$1e84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , , Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:13:26 -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 This is an excellent idea. If some of the name players were to involve themselves with this (for it is they that will draw a crowd to attend) it could have the same beneficial effect as the N/I lessons before sessions at NABC's. Craig > > I think we need help from zonal organisations to educate players > about > rules. Why not having seminars on basic rules and etiquette during > regional and sectional tournaments, with financial support of zonal > orgnisations. Some years ago, ACBL made a successfull effort on > bridge teaching. It is time now to do something about rules teaching. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 09:51:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:51:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29275 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:51:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:51:32 -0800 Message-ID: <004401bf4361$147d2de0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0.4bb3e2d3.2581d380@aol.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:49:56 -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 Kojak wrote: > FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM writes: > > > Civil disobedience has always had the potential consequence of > > inconveniencing[2] the protestors. either in the short term or the long > > term. It seems some of us are willing to be so inconvenienced. > > > What, no signs, posters, sit-ins? Get real. Why not try intelligent > argument? > With whom? I suggest the ACBL Board of Directors for ACBL regulations; the ACBL Laws Commission for "Elections" and interpretations of the Laws: the Competition and Conventions (C&C) Committee for matters relating to Alerts, conventions, etc.; and letters to the editor of *The Bridge Bulletin* of the ACBL on any subject. I once thought that mailing multiple copies of an e-mail message to all BoD members might be effective (never tried it), but I was advised to just go through my own district's Director, as the BoD members tend not to pay much attention to anyone outside their district. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but several Directors to whom I have sent suggestions hinted that I should go through channels. There are five BoD members who have home page web site links on the ACBL's web site: Jonathan Steinberg, Sharon Fairchild, Dan Morse, Allan Levy, and Alan Pilitch, districts 2, 5, 16, 24 and 25, respectively. Checking those just now, I find that the Dan Morse link doesn't work. See http://www.acbl.org/links.stm#BOD Steinberg and Levy have summaries of the BoD actions taken in Boston, if anyone is interested. The e-mail addresses of all BoD members who have e-mail (probably most) ought to be on the ACBL web site, but I can't find them. Anyone have a list? Let's see it! The WBF LC co-chairmen have discouraged e-mail, and the way to get comments to them is, I suppose, through Gary Blaiss. Same with the advisory group, the C&C, who seem to be the source of advice to the BoD's Tournament Committee. They were to consider in Boston my suggestion that the national IMP-Pair championship be scored by XIMPs instead of Butler, but I haven't seen the results yet. The Chief Tournament Director is Gary Blaiss, mailto:gary.blaiss@acbl.org Since Gary's organization is responsible for the implementation of Laws and regulations (not their creation, hopefully), questions or comments regarding those subjects should logically go to him. And, of course there is the Chief Executive Officer of the ACBL, dsilber@acbl.org (for major administrative concerns) Another outlet is *The Bridge Bulletin* of the ACBL, letters to the editor. I have found Chief Editor Brent Manley (editor@acbl.org) very willing to publish reasonable letters reflecting almost any opinion. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 09:56:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 08:54:17 +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 IAA28961 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 08:54:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-30.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.30]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA24902; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:53:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004001bf4359$111e1e00$1e84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Linda Trent" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:53:57 -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 Linda, as you are well aware, the ACBL has exercised its zonal option on this matter and does NOT require the use of the stop card...only that you either ALWAYS use it or NEVER use it. So whatever would a procedural penalty be for? I have explained why I choose to NEVER use it, to avoid any possibility of even unwitting UI. Whyever would I choose to abandon the game because of a minor rule change? I still play in spite of 25b after all. I still play in spite of the execrable manner in which 25A is being enforced in many venues in a bid box environment. If it were required in our zone to use a stop card, I would attempt to use it ALWAYS. As you point out elsewhere lies chaos. But this is a forum for the discussion of what ought to be as well as what is. Laval has advanced the interesting proposition that abandoning the stop card altogether would be an improvement. Based on the inconsistent and information conveying manner in which it is used in most club games and smaller sectionals I feel his suggestion has consdierable merit. The average paying customer does not seem to like the stop card, and it puts the ethical player at a disadvantage. It effectively provides another form of intonation to the bidding just as we are eliminating that problem with bid boxes. David makes it clear that this is NOT a problem in EBU/WBU. I suspect it is much less of a problem in NABC and large regional play in Flight A where players are better educated. But I feel that game is not worth the candle at club, sectional and B&C flight levels. Susie Kumquat can't use three different meanings for "Pass", "I Pass", and "No Bid" anymore. Why should we add the stop card to the 15 legal words? I would rather see us make it mandatory than the present optional...but my first choice would be to abandon it altogether. By the way, in a friendly foursome, golfers sometimes are allowed to take a Mulligan. Not even golf is always for blood (but don't let my Dad or my boss hear me say that :-)) Not every player cares about bridge being a serious sport (I do, but I am not typical). Many want it to be a fun and challanging but friendly game. There may be some room between Easybridge and the Bermuda Bowl for these players. :-)) Craig -----Original Message----- From: Linda Trent To: Bridge Laws Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 5:24 PM Subject: RE: Stop card >Is this not what Procedural Penalties are designed for? How many 1/4 board >penalties do you think it would take to get people to straighten up? There >are a million things - mandate the use of the Stop Card, mandate Convention >Card regulations, just to name a couple that spring to mind immediately that >would be easy. Craig, I bet even you, after losing 3 boards in a session, >would learn to follow the procedure. If you choose to abandon the game >rather than comply, then perhaps that is the best solution for everyone. In >my opinion, chaos is worse. Whenever I advance this theory I get told, "but >everyone will stop playing because you are so mean!" > >Bah, humbug! I was in a meeting and a very prominent player made a good >point: Bridge will never gain acceptance as a serious sport because the way >we conduct ourselves makes us the laughingstock of the serious sports world. > >I know he is right when it comes to golf. The integrity of that sport is >off the chart compared to ours. Do all the little old ladies quit playing >golf because they get a 2 stroke penalty when their ball moves? Period.? >No - They take the penalty because that is a Rule of The Game - and not only >that, they are REQUIRED to call the penalty on themselves, or they are >DISQUALIFIED from the event they are playing in. And they probably paid $50 >for their four-hour session - not the $5-$10 we typically play. I'd love to >see that penalty in bridge. It just boggles my mind that this is the only >game I know of that I can play that I don't even need to bother learning the >rules. Bridge's problems are much more serious than whether or not we have a >Stop Card. > >Linda > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Craig Senior >> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 9:49 AM >> To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: Stop card >> >> >> I have always chosen to accept our zonal option not to use it because I am >> somewhat forgetful and do not wish to be inconsistent in using >> it. It would >> seem than any action not taken eliminates an opportunity for UI. Are the >> opponents really to be considered so inattentive then cannot notice a jump >> in the level of the bidding? Perhaps they deserve whatever poor >> result their >> inattention produces, just as in any other area of the game. For myself, I >> will accept what poor results my forgetfulness causes me...but I >> do not want >> it to inadvertantly wound my opponents or give UI to my partner. >> I feel this >> is best accomplished by eliminating the stop card from my game. I would >> agree with your position. I think, however, such a change should be >> accompanied by education that a hesitation is required over such a bid, >> which many poorer players do not understand even when the card is used. >> >> Craig >> >> > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 10:06:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:33:14 +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 DAA27377 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 03:33:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba687805 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:26:25 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-144.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.144]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Aquatic-MailRouter V2.6h 9/1144672); 11 Dec 1999 02:26:24 Message-ID: <000001bf432b$178c7940$90df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:16:07 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman wrote: >This is a perfect candidate for the yearly to be organized Christmas >puzzle in BLML-land. What is the worst decision taken? >You may choose: > >1) Playing with this North >2) Using a convention in which a weak hand has to make a reverse call >3) Not reaching 4 hearts >4) Balancing with 2 diamonds >5) The TD decision >6) The AC decision > >We will pick a winner among the majority voters > >The prize is being allowed not to read BLML for one week. Eventually >curiosity wins. > (6). I think that (1) North is forgiven for his failure to alert as he may have been in a state of shock at his own 1H call on that suit, (2) North Americans are prohibited from so many conventions that we must forgive them for using any convention they are allowed to, (3) but North didn't make 4H, (4) not irrational, (5) not unreasonable if 2D is considered irrational, and the TD did estimate accurately the five tricks in 2C, so not a contender, and (6) the winner. Another reason for 2C-3 to be awarded to both NS and EW is that if East had have asked about the auction before bidding 2D, there are two likely scenarios which lead to 2C down 3: (a) North wakes up and explains. NOW, in the different position where he has seen North's subsequent pass, West will reject his option to alter his pass. (b) South's explanation of North's pass may give EW adequate information to pass out 2C. My favourite part of the hand is that I once sat in the East seat with the identical heart layout. HJ was led from dummy, and after due thought, I ducked, wishing I were good enough to duck in tempo. Declarer rose with the ace and called the TD, claiming I did not have my hesitation. That's what it's like in Australia, folks. There are worse things than the 300lb man doing the splits, e.g. assigning this 150lb man to calculate the split scoring. :-) Peter Gill Sydney, but off to Queensland on Friday for a week to enjoy the sunshine. HAND REPEATED FOR THE CURIOUS: Matchpoints Board 15 S QJT S W N E Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D C 54 2H P P P S 9652 S K8 H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not alerted D Q63 D T982 C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS S A743 H A9852 Before the opening lead, South D 74 informed the opps that there C Q8 had been a failure to alert 2C. EW called the director. The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). Away from the table, W said that had he been properly informed, he would not have balanced; East claimed that he would have doubled clubs. The director told the players to play the hand out. After a result was obtained, EW asked the director to review the hand. The director decided: result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result had the irregularity not occured; NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. NS appealed. The committee upheld the director's ruling; there was some thought to adjusting EW to +300, but they decided to keep the result as it was. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 10:26:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:26:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29420 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:26:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:26:19 -0800 Message-ID: <007201bf4365$f0148de0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil><199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca><009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <3.0.1.32.19991210003514.00766e90@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:26:04 -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 Mike Dennis wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > This is why this procedure should be taken out to sea and dumped. > >Whether the action counts as at all probable is a decision for the TD > >and AC, not to be got by bullying poor players in unfamiliar > >surroundings. > > Sorry, but I missed the post where someone endorsed bullying players. > > No one on this list has been a more consistent advocate of the practice of > asking a variety of questions in investigating MI and UI claims, so your > sudden lack of interest in West's opinion of his own likely course of > action is a startling reversal. I certainly agree that questions should not > be asked in a threatening way, and I disagree strongly with Marvin's > apparent willingness to frame the question in a way which prejudices the > answer in favor of the NOS (just as the questions should not be framed for > the opposite purpose). But I see nothing wrong and some potential value > from asking West how he might have bid if he had known what 2C really > meant. If he doesn't know (or is unwilling to make an admission against his > own interest), then no harm, no foul. But if he has a clear notion, and > especially when the proposed action converges so cleanly with the hand he > holds, then that does seem to make a pretty persuasive case for what would > actually happened absent the MI. What do we gain by having the TD > second-guess both the evidence of the cards and the word of the West player? > It is perfectly ok for the TD to get input from players if he feels he needs it, but the time for this is not in the middle of a deal (stealing round time from the players), and not by asking for a rushed answer to a poor question, unless it is possible that the last call bid by a NO might be changed. The TD usually can decide a case on the evidence of the cards and from experience. S/he will listen to contrary opinions of the players, I hope, before the ruling is cast in concrete. When s/he feels the need for player input, that can be obtained in a less hectic manner than hauling people away from the table. From what I observe, players are less likely to argue a poor position strongly after the TD makes a tentative ruling than before. Furthermore, there is an appeals process. L12C2 does not require exact knowledge of what might have happened, as the 1/3-1/6 guidelines of the ACBL LC make clear. TDs are demanding exact answers when it is not appropriate. If you say, "I don't know without thinking about it," or "Just now I am not sure what I would have done," you are told that you must give a definite answer now or the matter is closed. This is not due process. Anyway, I agree completely with David Stevenson's comments, which I admire especially as coming from a TD (many of whom want to get a matter over with too quickly). Now the question is, should a player go meekly when summoned from the table, or what? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 10:41:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:41:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29480 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:41:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (iits-01-71.sat.idworld.net [209.142.71.71]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21533; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:41:19 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <38518F84.CB800DE8@txdirect.net> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:40:52 -0600 From: "\"Albert \\\"BiigAl\\\" Lochli\"" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Gill CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Stop card References: <000101bf432b$186e4dc0$90df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is it possible to get the lesson plan from this sent toward me -- I think that I can instigate it locally. Let the others do it in their neighborhood. Since I cannot scoot over there to see the class I would like to know more about it. Thanks. Patty Moncus wrote: > > Dear Friends & Family, > Here's a site to keep you busy while I'm gone. I > leave tomorrow. > So, you won't hear from me for a while. > Watch for me in Shepherd's Field in Bethlehem, > Israel live via > satellite on Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral > program at 3:00 > Pacific Time. Check your local listings for channel > and exact > time or on live streaming on the Internet from > http://www.crystalcathedral.org. > Hope you all have a wonderful Christmas and a New > Year with love > and joy to spare. > Patty > > http://hometown.aol.com//hazelal1/Granniesgone.html -- Albert "BiigAl" Lochli biigal@txdirect.net - Phone: (210) 829-4274 PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 District 16 ACBL Internet Coordinator - Texas Editor, Clubs pages Great Bridge Links - Canada From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 11:01:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:51:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29541 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:51:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (iits-01-71.sat.idworld.net [209.142.71.71]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA24112; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:51:03 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <385191CD.A441D8FE@txdirect.net> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:50:37 -0600 From: "\"Albert \\\"BiigAl\\\" Lochli\"" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Gill CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Stop card References: <000101bf432b$186e4dc0$90df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Resent -- Microsoft attached wrong quoted file. Is it possible to get the lesson plan from this sent toward me -- I think that I can instigate it locally. Let the others do it in their neighborhood. Since I cannot scoot over there to see the class I would like to know more about it. Thanks. Peter Gill wrote: > > Nancy Dressing wrote: > >As a director/teacher who deals mainly with brand new players I find this > >discussion very interesting. > >I start my novices with bid boxes, (they sometimes forget to use them and > >bid aloud but after a few giggles they fall into the tempo of the bid box). > >They also learn about the stop card at the same time they are told how to > >bid a suit, double redouble, and pass. Easy!! The stop card is in the bid > >box, isn't it? They learn to tap the alert card and say alert. They are > >learning early in their careers how to manage the rules of bidding with and > >without bid boxes.. They also receive a copy of the article below from the > >ACBL Bulletin in 1967 explaining the whys and wherefores of the skip bid > >warning. Many of the mini lessons before the game are about laws, rules, > >and proprieties. They like these lessons as much if not more as ones about > >play of the hand and bidding. > >We have a joke here that goes "Why do we use the stop card in Pinehurst? " > >"So we can bid before the opponent passes!" Most of our players place the > >stop card on the table, bid, wait for 10 seconds and pick up the card. . > If > >they use the stop card, they use it *all the time* or not at all. > >If beginners are able to learn these little tools, they are on their way to > >learn about bidding in tempo, hesitations, etc. Most Directors will allow > >beginners too much slack in playing to the time requirement, allow > >hesitations, and other things that cause players problems when they move > >into stronger games where all the rules, more or less, are enforced and > then > >try to figure out why these players are uncomfortable in the "big" game. > It > >is really because we haven't taught them how to conduct themselves in the > >game...novice or expert. When the expert points these things out to them, > >they are embarrassed and hurt, and after the game go home and never come > >back!!!! Now we are finding out how hard it is "to teach an old dog new > >tricks". We cannot expect Tournament Directors be strict about rules that > >we as club directors are not willing to enforce. > >In reference to Linda's comment about the 5 variables in playing area, we > >must indeed add the director!!! A huge reason why new players are > terrified > >to come to our games. Someone might have to call this person to the table > >and if he/she does turn out to be an ogre, they can't get out of there fast > >enough. I have lost students after their first venture into a real game > due > >to the obnoxious director call and the obnoxious director that answered the > >call! > > I found this extremely refreshing to read. I have heard of some bridge > teachers in New Zealand, who include a special lesson "Bridge is a > Special Game" in their Beginners' Lessons. One such ex-beginner, > who has progressed rapidly, told me that she and her fellow > beginners eagerly awaited this lesson, and they all absolutely loved > the advice on ethics and Laws, presented with humour and personality. > She is surprised that so many teachers do not do the same. > > I wonder how we can change the world so that instead of pockets of > excellence, such teaching becomes the norm? > > >THE SKIP BID WARNING > > > >The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge permit the Sponsoring > >Organization....*snip* > > Thanks for including this; it was interesting to those of us who > experience such things only when we travel overseas. > > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia. -- Albert "BiigAl" Lochli biigal@txdirect.net - Phone: (210) 829-4274 PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 District 16 ACBL Internet Coordinator - Texas Editor, Clubs pages Great Bridge Links - Canada From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 13:53:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:53:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00213 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:53:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:51:57 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991210214736.0088b490@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:47:36 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:12 PM 12/10/99 -0500, David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 3:35 PM +0000 12/10/99, Tim West-meads wrote: >>In-Reply-To: >>DWS wrote: >>> I don't care what the reason is: I just do not like it. I have never >>> seen that breaking Laws in a way that benefits yourself is an acceptable >>> method of protest. > >>Since opening a 9hcp NT in the ACBL leads to an automatic score adjustment >>I don't see how breaking the law would benefit Richard - providing he >>makes opponents aware that he has done so and that they should call the >>TD. > >It isn't an automatic adjustment, because the ACBL interprets an implicit >agreement not to be established until the second time it comes up. If one is attempting to break the rules, simply make the agreement explicit. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 14:00:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 14:00:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00237 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 14:00:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:58:42 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991210215421.0084e8b0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:54:21 -0500 To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <005901bf4335$c3b1cb80$58ad93c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:38 PM 12/10/99 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Law 40 D gives unlimited power as soon as >a partnership understanding is deemed to exist; >as, for example, in the case of a habitual action >or one that has been discussed. An isolated >occasion is trickier if it can be argued successfully >that there is no partnership understanding. [We >are discussing initial action on hands of 8 HCP or >less] +=+ I don't see any reference to HCP in Law 40D. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 14:05:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 14:05:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00259 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 14:05:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:04:00 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991210215939.008749d0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:59:39 -0500 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <004401bf4361$147d2de0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <0.4bb3e2d3.2581d380@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:49 PM 12/10/99 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >There are five BoD members who have home page web site links on the ACBL's >web site: Jonathan Steinberg, Sharon Fairchild, Dan Morse, Allan Levy, and >Alan Pilitch, districts 2, 5, 16, 24 and 25, respectively. Checking those >just now, I find that the Dan Morse link doesn't work. See >http://www.acbl.org/links.stm#BOD That's Howard Piltch of District 25. But, the last board meeting he reported on was held in Reno. >Steinberg and Levy have summaries of the BoD actions taken in Boston, if >anyone is interested. > >The e-mail addresses of all BoD members who have e-mail (probably most) >ought to be on the ACBL web site, but I can't find them. Anyone have a list? >Let's see it! They all have e-mail address, you can find them all at: http://home.maine.rr.com/timg/coi/bod.html. Rather than e-mail them all, there is someone at Memphis responsible for sending a package of material to all Directors on a regular basis. I have forgotten her name, but it should not be too difficult to direct e-mail to her and have your letter circulated. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 14:42:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 14:42:19 +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 OAA00454 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 14:42:09 +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 WAA28366 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:41:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id WAA13250; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:41:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:41:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199912110341.WAA13250@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> highly unlikely that South would not compete to 3H >> (given that his partner would bid 2S with a minimum he has already shown >> a desire to be there). > >I am almost certain '2S' must have been a misprint in the original >message. The normal way to play "reverse Drury" is that opener rebids >his suit (i.e. 2H) with a sub-minimum opening. A rebid of 2S would, >for most pairs, show genuine reversing values, although not necessarily >spade length. The name "reverse Drury" is to distinguish from plain >Drury, where a 2D bid shows the sub-minimum opening, and a rebid of >opener's suit promises full opening values. > >Of course it's possible that the particular pair at the table was >playing an unusual method. > *sigh* I really must not write things late at night, or, at least, proof them better. I meant, of course, rebid the specified major. Sorry...again. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 15:32:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:32:55 +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 PAA00648 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:32:46 +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 <19991211043230.KHTG17446.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:32:30 -0800 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: Stop card Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:29:14 -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: <385191CD.A441D8FE@txdirect.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We have a joke here that goes "Why do we use the stop card in Pinehurst?" "So we can bid before the opponent passes!" Aw, come on, mom, the joke is: Why DON'T we use the Stop Card in Pinehurst? So we have half a chance of getting our bid on the table before LHO passes. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 15:36:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:36:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00669 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:35:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:35:45 -0800 Message-ID: <008001bf4391$27efa940$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <3.0.1.32.19991209235621.00764bbc@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:35:20 -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: > At 03:03 PM 12/9/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: > >E-W have been misinformed, and if East had known that 2C was Drury > >it is not unlikely that he would have passed instead of bidding 2D. > >One might say, "But if 2C had been properly Alerted, hence no > >infraction, the 2H contract would have been perfectly normal." That > >is not the way to look at it. The TD/AC should rule/decide on the > >basis of what would have happened if East and West had known that 2C > >was Drury, with that knowledge somehow provided (e.g., behind a > >screen) without North's involvement. > > I agree with this. The fact that the proper information could only have > been provided by the player who ultimately forgot it is irrelevant, and we > need not take the view (which, so far as I know, nobody has done) that if > EW had been duly informed by an alert from North, then perforce North would > have taken action himself. No, we should treat the contrafactual assumption > of full information as having arrived independently of the befuddled North. > But you seem prepared to take it a step further. > > > >But we have to consider West, not just East. One would think that > >West would not double 2C, whether or not he was aware that it was > >Drury. If it was natural, West is delighted. If Drury, it would be > >stupid to possibly straighten out a misunderstanding by asking about > >the bid and/or by doubling. > > EW are not entitled to have it both ways, IMO. I agree that the analysis > should not let North off the hook for forgetting, but it is neither > reasonable nor fair nor required as a matter of law to assume that West > would have been properly informed (independently of North) and yet also > clued into North's confusion on the matter, at least until North makes it > plain by passing. The proper line of analysis is as Hirsch has suggested: > we should determine what West would likely have done if he had known that > 2C was Drury, by agreement. And both his holding and his own testimony > argue strongly for a double of 2C. > > And as Hirsch points out, that pretty much rules out a club contract by NS. > Reasonable, but if South's CC, let's say not in view, had been in view and had prevented the MI for West by showing him plainly that 2C was Drury (West observing the CC discreetly, not wanting to help North, and not required to do so), then West would not have had MI, would not have doubled 2C, etc., etc. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 15:56:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:56:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00788 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:55:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:55:44 -0800 Message-ID: <009601bf4393$f2693d60$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com><001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> <011801bf42bd$3fc83200$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:55:12 -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 Meadows wrote: Marvin wrote: > > >Cheating is flopping one's "private" score open on the table > >while writing a score, so that the opponents can see results of > >hands they have yet to play. > > I don't see how you can call this one cheating, Marv. Call > it inconsiderate, thoughtless, stupid, a failure to observe > the rules, anything but cheating. Cheating occurs when the > opps surreptitiously read the card and take note of the > scores. Giving someone else an easy opportunity to cheat, > however avoidably, is not the same as cheating - at least > IMHO. If it were done in collusion with the opps, then that > would obviously be a different matter. > Many years ago, not lately, I observed that some very good N-S players would be careless about their "private" scores, enabling me to see them if I wished. This was cheating, since they knew perfectly well what they were doing, and that the effect could be that I would see some scores and then pulverize other N-S's with the knowledge obtained. I don't notice any good players doing that these days, but I do see the clients of some pros who flop their "private" scores openly on the table in that manner. Of course many players are doing this, almost all surely with no intention of cheating. It seems to me, however, that a pro should not allow a client to do this sort of thing, as many do. So, I'll take it back, in a way. Revealing one's scores innocently, discussing hand results innocently, and other poor practices, are not exactly cheating. However, they have the same effect as cheating, because other pairs sitting in the same direction may be clobbered by the real cheaters, meaning those who use the information. The current practice of putting numerous CCs (for different partners) into a flat plastic folder, with a private score on the inner face, should be outlawed. The CC is designed for folding, so that one's scores on the inside can have some security. A folded CC takes up less space on the table, and table space seems to be an excuse for those not following CC regulations. The argument that having only half the CC showing hides the other half doesn't hold water, because one can easily turn it over when the auction (or play) addresses something on the other side. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 16:58:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA00884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 16:58:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00879 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 16:58:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from momsputer (pm2-10.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.40]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Sandhills) with SMTP id AAA20228 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 00:56:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <009f01bf439c$dd8b0d20$2860040c@momsputer> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: References: <199912101844.NAA27400@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 00:59:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Stop card > > From: "Marvin L. French" > How can players be expected to follow the rules if there is no easy > way for them to find out what the rules are? > There is an easy way for players to learn the rules. There is a book available from most book dealers titled "Bridge Player's Companion" by Larry Harris, 10.95 member price from the ACBL, and another one I have seen at Tournaments on the Baron Barclay Book table which looks very much like our law book but is aimed at the player. The title escapes me as does BB's catalog but is something like the Bridge Player's Law book. Also Alfred Sheinwold's "5 Week to Winning Bridge" contained a printing of all the laws. No wonder that was called the "Bible" for so many years. One not only learned to play bridge but learned the laws also. Maybe some of our authors of books for beginneres should include this valuable information. Nancy Also, sorry I left the word don't out of my stop card joke. Should have read " Why we Don't use the stop card in Pinehurst." But we seem to be leaving that word out a lot in bridge these days. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 18:21:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:21:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01105 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:21:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:32:02 -0800 Message-ID: <010d01bf4399$03fe06a0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0.4bb3e2d3.2581d380@aol.com> <3.0.6.32.19991210215939.008749d0@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:31:39 -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 Goodwin wrote: > >There are five BoD members who have home page web site links on the ACBL's > >web site: Jonathan Steinberg, Sharon Fairchild, Dan Morse, Allan Levy, and > >Alan Pilitch, districts 2, 5, 16, 24 and 25, respectively. Checking those > >just now, I find that the Dan Morse link doesn't work. See > >http://www.acbl.org/links.stm#BOD > > That's Howard Piltch of District 25. But, the last board meeting he > reported on was held in Reno. No, it isn't. It's the links page that shows all five Directors who have web sites. > > >Steinberg and Levy have summaries of the BoD actions taken in Boston, if > >anyone is interested. > > > >The e-mail addresses of all BoD members who have e-mail (probably most) > >ought to be on the ACBL web site, but I can't find them. Anyone have a list? > >Let's see it! > > They all have e-mail address, you can find them all at: > > http://home.maine.rr.com/timg/coi/bod.html. Thanks, Tim! COI would be the place to look, I didn't think of that. I see that Nadine Wood, a force behind COI, has now been elected by the BoD as one of the ACBL representatives to the WBF. Joan Gerard was reelected. > Rather than e-mail them all, there is someone at Memphis responsible for > sending a package of material to all Directors on a regular basis. I have > forgotten her name, but it should not be too difficult to direct e-mail to > her and have your letter circulated. > That is Madalaine Gunderson, I believe, secretary to the CEO (still?), a very helpful person. I remember now that she once xeroxed a message of mine so she could sent it to all ACBL Directors. She is the person to whom requests for "exhibits" not included in the BoD minutes should be directed. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 18:33:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:33:25 +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 SAA01151 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:33:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (dial67.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.67]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA10785; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:32:56 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:33:46 -0500 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:41 AM -0500 12/9/99, Tony wrote: >I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm >just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. Thanks for asking! This is a good example hand. I don't think your ruling was correct, but I wouldn't say it was "bad" - I've seen many worse. The key to applying the Laws correctly here is to consider their purpose. The Laws require full disclosure of each sides' methods. If they did not the game would be much different, and I think most of us agree much poorer. The Laws could achieve full disclosure by mandating that everyone use the same methods. Fortunately they do not. Instead they attempt to make sure that a pair always has the opportunity to do at least as well as they would have had they known their opponents' methods completely. I have heard the argument many times, including in this thread, that one should base the ruling on what would have happened had screens been in place. That is on the right track, but it's artificial and overly complicated. As has also been pointed out in this thread, one should base the 12C2 adjustment on what would have been likely and at all probable had the infraction not occurred. Since the infraction is misinformation another way of arriving at a result is to consider what would likely have happened had EW known their opponents' methods. We cannot and should not consider how they might have known. They are entitled to know their opponents' methods completely, as if they had been playing with and against them for years, or as if they had read the same system book, or sat with them while they filled in their convention card. EW are also entitled to know that North did not alert the response, which may indicate that, for whatever reason, he was unaware of its meaning. Now the pieces easily fall into place. What would have happened had West known that 2C was Drury and known that North had not alerted it? It seems likely that he would have passed. We need consider his action no further. What would have happened had East known that 2C was Drury? Surely he would have passed. We may consider his bid execrable even had South held clubs. I do. That is not relevant, since he'd surely have been more likely to pass with correct information than he was with the misinformation he implicitly received. Could East have been after a double shot? It's possible, since he could have been aware of the infraction, but it seems unlikely. I certainly see no reason to pursue the matter. We have no reason to believe that EW have committed an infraction, and every reason to believe NS have. -- Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 18:53:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:53:14 +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 SAA01203 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:53:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.191] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11whKr-000Nsw-00; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:52:57 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf43ac$c5ead280$bf5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3850FF33.97DE4CAB@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:56:50 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! ================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:25 PM Subject: Re: Stop card > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Laval wrote: > and is it Herman who writes: > However, I need to stress that there is only one correct > stop procedure: use before every skip bid, or opening at > 2-level or higher, and leave it for 10 seconds. LHO should > act as if he is thinking those full 10 seconds, and make his > call immediately after the stop is removed > -- +=+ Er... well. Perhaps we should not fire off all of our guns without noting this not to be an absolute requirement of LHO. [Law 73D1]. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 19:59:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:59:13 +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 TAA01280 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:59:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.208] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11wiMd-000PJI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 08:58:51 +0000 Message-ID: <008c01bf43b5$fa4f3620$bf5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.19991210215421.0084e8b0@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 08:50:36 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! ================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Goodwin To: Grattan Endicott ; Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 2:54 AM Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods > At 05:38 PM 12/10/99 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >+=+ Law 40 D gives unlimited power as soon as > >a partnership understanding is deemed to exist; > >as, for example, in the case of a habitual action > >or one that has been discussed. An isolated > >occasion is trickier if it can be argued successfully > >that there is no partnership understanding. [We > >are discussing initial action on hands of 8 HCP or > >less] +=+ > > I don't see any reference to HCP in Law 40D. > +=+ Agreed. It is commonly treated in this way for the sake of easy understanding and I thought the words would be generally understood. In principle messages are better conveyed in a language that the sender and the receiver have in common. Anyone who wishes can express it in alternative terms, provided they are intelligible to the hearer/reader and define a hand that is of mean strength less the value of a King. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 19:59:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:59:13 +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 TAA01279 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:59:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.208] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11wiMa-000PJI-00; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 08:58:50 +0000 Message-ID: <008b01bf43b5$f8f7e380$bf5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: , "Ron Johnson" References: <199912101353.IAA25209@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 08:42:02 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! ================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Johnson To: Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:53 PM Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods > Schoderb@aol.com writes: > > > > In a message dated 12/9/99 7:59:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM writes: > > ======== \x/ ========= > > Is there any reason to believe that anyone's listening? > > When people are willing to go to extra-ordinary lengths such > as has been advocated in this thread there's strong reason > to believe that something is broken. > ======= \x/ ========= +=+ Oh yes. I have every confidence that eyes are now open to the existence of blml and gradually strength of opinion soaks in. Change is gradual, and fiercely resisted by the unreconstructed elements, but it comes. However, I do not think those who attack the ACBL in unrestrained language do their cause any good - it turns aside the feelings of those who are inclined to be sympathetic. When we fence the onlooker has a reaction if he sees blood on the ground. And, just as a personal opinion, I do think that however much anyone disapproves of a decision they should recognize that the ACBL is seeking to do a difficult job with honesty of purpose and belief. (As, strangeley enough, is also the WBF.) There is a desperate need for better understanding of each other in this world. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. papers circulated for the WBFLC agenda in Bermuda comprise largely printouts from blml. 'Your name may be on it'! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 19:59:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:59:14 +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 TAA01281 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:59:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.208] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11wiMe-000PJI-00; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 08:58:52 +0000 Message-ID: <008d01bf43b5$fb296980$bf5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: "Marvin L. French" , , "David J. Grabiner" References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com><001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 08:58:07 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! ================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: David J. Grabiner To: Marvin L. French ; Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 8:09 PM Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods > At 7:10 PM -0800 12/9/99, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >So opening a 9 HCP weak notrump, announced to the opponents as a > >routine 9-12, is cheating? I don't think so. > > Clarification: Cheating is only the *deliberate* violation of a regulation, > with knowledge that what you are doing is wrong. This includes playing > illegal conventions, although the ACBL's right to define some of these > conventions may not be authorized. > +=+ Sorry. I have not quite grasped what 'conventions' this might refer to. Can you give me a clear example? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 20:34:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 20:34:58 +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 UAA01361 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 20:34:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.188]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA23922 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:34:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38513079.64BAF016@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:55:21 +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: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <08ac01bf3ef0$3e952c60$6a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19991208120232.00842730@mail.maine.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19991210093801.0084c9e0@mail.maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 12:24 PM 12/9/99 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Provided the ACBL have the right to prohibit the use of > >systems that allow light openings - do they have the right > >to define light openings? > > > >The answer to that one is clearly a yes : > > Why is this clearly "yes"? The Laws say that a Zonal organization may > regulate opening one bids which may be made on "a hand of a king or more > below average strength." The Laws don't say Zonal organizations may > regulate based on other evaluation techniques. > Well, that is the other question. Surely they not only have the right, but specifically the duty to define what they mean by light openings. Which is what they have done. It is then up to (I don't know who) to check whether or not the definition they come up with conforms to their right under the Laws. > >Definition of light opening : a call that can be made on a > >hand that would, in HCP counting, be worth 4HCP or less. > > > >I see nothing wrong with that. > > > >As I said, I am not answering the question whether or not > >the ACBL (or anyone) has the right to prohibit light > >openings. > > The answer to that one is clearly "yes". > > Tim I'm surprised Tim, I thought you belonged to the other camp. Well, there has been so much writing in this thread, that it is difficult to keep track of who believes what. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 20:35:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 20:35:01 +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 UAA01365 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 20:34:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.188]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA23929 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:34:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <385132A5.3ADB0D8E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:04:37 +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: Stop card References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > It just boggles my mind that this is the only > game I know of that I can play that I don't even need to bother > learning the > rules. Bridge's problems are much more serious than whether or not we > have a > Stop Card. > > Linda > > [Laval Dubreuil] You are right. Stop card is just the top of the > iceberg. > Many club players do not know basic bridge rules and "hate" them. I > try to sell the message that this game is unplayable without rules an > invite some players to try a "no rules" game against me (with money). > > More seriously, I think some club managers are partly responsible of > this > situation. They think they must tolerate anything to keep their > customers. > Players use to play this way and do not change their bad habbits when > going to an other club or to tournaments. > > These managers make a bad calculation. In my club, founded 5 years > ago, I clearly stated that the rules apply, and I tell players to > call TD > each time something happens to the table. We have one of the biggest > club around (about 30 tables) and I think it is partly because > players > know the game is fair and rules apply the same way to everybody. > > My wife and I try to rule smoothly, but without deviating from Laws > and > regulations. We also print and distribute articles explaining rules > (last week it was on communication between partners: poker-face). > But changing bad habbits is a long road. If we should go further, we > would have to give a lot of procedural penalties, and then I am also > affraid to kill my club, because we would be the only club around > applying Law 90 (I have never seen such a penalty last 30 years). > > I think we need help from zonal organisations to educate players > about > rules. Why not having seminars on basic rules and etiquette during > regional and sectional tournaments, with financial support of zonal > orgnisations. Some years ago, ACBL made a successfull effort on > bridge teaching. It is time now to do something about rules teaching. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > Exactly. But it is an ongoing process. Over the past few years, I have been able to change a number of things at my club. Boards never leave the table during play any more. Alerting is according to the regulations. There is still a long way to go, but every step gets us nearer the goal. Don't be afraid to hammer rules into players; And there is no need either to do it with PP's. In all those years, I have only once handed out a PP for board off the table - and only then because it was the fourth offence in a round of three boards. Sometimes they don't like us, and say so. So what ? Last tuesday I tapped somebody on the hand for alerting 4NT (absolutely forbidden in Belgium, no matter what the meaning). I am certain they left our club (they were visitors) thinking what a nerd I was. I am equally certain they will never again alert 4NT (or am I being too optimistic there?) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 11 23:07:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:07:26 +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 XAA01625 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:07:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from p25s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.38] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11wlI7-00026I-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:06:24 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:05:45 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf43d0$0df23960$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, December 11, 1999 9:51 AM Subject: Re: Stop card >Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >> >> It just boggles my mind that this is the only >> game I know of that I can play that I don't even need to bother >> learning the >> rules. Bridge's problems are much more serious than whether or not we >But it is an ongoing process. > >Over the past few years, I have been able to change a number >of things at my club. Boards never leave the table during >play any more. Alerting is according to the regulations. > >There is still a long way to go, but every step gets us >nearer the goal. > >Don't be afraid to hammer rules into players; And there is >no need either to do it with PP's. In all those years, I >have only once handed out a PP for board off the table - and >only then because it was the fourth offence in a round of >three boards. > >Sometimes they don't like us, and say so. So what ? > >Last tuesday I tapped somebody on the hand for alerting 4NT >(absolutely forbidden in Belgium, no matter what the >meaning). Assault on a player is forbidden in UK also. Alerting 4NT is correct in UK however, but if it was not I am sure there are penalties short of assault. Do you remember the incident of Mrs Bennett who shot her husband at the Bridge table? Now there's assault for you! http://snopes.simplenet.com/spoons/noose/bennett.htm >thinking what a nerd I was. I am equally certain they will >never again alert 4NT (or am I being too optimistic there?) If you really want to be sure..shoot them:-)) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 03:24:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 03:24:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA02532 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 03:24:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 11:23:11 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991211111848.00859100@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 11:18:48 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: alternate evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <008c01bf43b5$fa4f3620$bf5408c3@dodona> References: <3.0.6.32.19991210215421.0084e8b0@mail.maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:50 AM 12/11/99 -0000, Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: >> At 05:38 PM 12/10/99 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >+=+ Law 40 D gives unlimited power as soon as >> >a partnership understanding is deemed to exist; >> >as, for example, in the case of a habitual action >> >or one that has been discussed. An isolated >> >occasion is trickier if it can be argued successfully >> >that there is no partnership understanding. [We >> >are discussing initial action on hands of 8 HCP or >> >less] +=+ >> >> I don't see any reference to HCP in Law 40D. >> >+=+ Agreed. It is commonly treated in this way >for the sake of easy understanding and I thought >the words would be generally understood. In >principle messages are better conveyed in a >language that the sender and the receiver have >in common. Anyone who wishes can express it >in alternative terms, provided they are intelligible >to the hearer/reader and define a hand that is of >mean strength less the value of a King. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Let me see if you agree with this: 1. I may use an evaluation technique other than HCP to determine whether a hand is "a king or more below average strength" provided I can supply the opponents with an easy definition of the evaluation technique. 2. I can easily provide and example of a hand with fewer than 8 HCP that I feel is less than a King below average strength: AQJTxxx x xx xxx would seem to me to be as strong as Axx Kxx Qxx Jxxx, or at any rate, less than a King weaker. If you would like, I can provide a simple evaluation technique which takes into account suit lengths which will value the first example at least as high as the second (which is generally accepted to be the "average hand"). 3. Since AQJTxxx x xx xxx is less than a King below average strength, a Zonal organization does not have the authority to restrict me from having an agreement to open this hand with a bid of one spade. 4. The ACBL has a regulation which prevents partnership from having an agreement to open (at the one level) hand with fewer than 8 HCP. AQJTxxx x xx xxx contains fewer than 8 HCP, so I may not agree with my partner to open this hand one spade in an ACBL event. 5. The ACBL is in violation of the Laws. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 05:00:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 05:00:20 +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 FAA02891 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 05:00:12 +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 NAA05612 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:00:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA28566 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:00:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:00:31 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912111800.NAA28566@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Boston conditions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While I am enormously grateful to Linda and her colleagues for their work, apparently in less than optimum conditions, I feel the need to offer some defense of the Bostion NABC. (I was not involved with organizing the tournament, and I attended only four days. Sigh.) > From: "Linda Trent" > Well - first there were two sites, in two hotels that were a good > 15 min. walk apart. The path between the two hotels was an indoor corridor, and it took me only about two or three minutes. Admittedly I'm a fast walker, but 15 minutes is way too pessimistic unless you get lost. The outdoor walk was a short city block. > When the National events had big fields, everyone was crammed > into a too small space and on two floors of the Westin. The only day I played in the Westin was fine, but it was the Friday after Thanksgiving. I wouldn't be surprised if other days were worse. > The smoking area was in three small rooms at the Westin on > the third floor and all the smoke leaked out into the lobby-like > area that was shared by the playing area. Massachusetts has very strict laws generally prohibiting indoor smoking. (Our European readers may need a minute or two to recover from their shock.) I'm a bit surprised there was an indoor smoking area at all. Nevertheless, it's fair to consider facilities for smokers at future tournaments. Maybe we will have to restrict NABC's to North Carolina and Kentucky (major tobacco-producing states, much friendlier to smokers). > For appeals, we couldn't even get copies of the appeal form > for the committee members because the copy machine was at the > other hotel. This is just poor organization. At worst, an ACBL employee could have run over to Staples (discount office supply store) and bought a copier for $250 or so. The ACBL was disorganized in other ways too. I don't think this has anything to do with Boston. > Had to hold committees in playing areas. Again an ACBL problem. Why can't there be a room? It could be used for something else most of the time -- even something not related to the tournament. > Didn't have enough screening directors. People sometimes > had to wait an hour just to get a case screened. All the > Directors that used to help were over at the other hotel > hearing Director Panel cases most of the time. And another ACBL problem. There need to be enough people to implement the procedures. If there aren't enough TD's, use two TD's and a player or one TD and two players. Somebody should have figured out the implications before deciding to have TD's hear appeals. > Boston was very expensive. $28 a day to park your car at the > hotel. A car?!! In Boston? Why would you bring a car? A train from the distant suburbs is $4.85 round trip, including $2 for parking at the station. Nearer suburbs are less. If you drove to Boston, you would have been better-advised to leave your car somewhere outside the city where cheap parking is available, then take a cab or train to the hotel. Also, driving in Boston is something of an adventure, not recommended for those unfamiliar with the local customs. (The colors on the stop lights have non-standard meanings here, for example. Yellow means 'go'. Red means 'speed up'. Green means you better stop for all the cars going through on the red.) You certainly don't need or want a car for getting around downtown. That said, there is no doubt that Boston is a relatively expensive city. There are less expensive hotels but not downtown. Boston is considered a desirable destination for both business and tourism, and the result is higher prices than less desirable cities. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 06:17:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 06:17:50 +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 GAA03084 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 06:17:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27717 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 20:17:30 +0100 Received: from ip197.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.197), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda27713; Sat Dec 11 20:17:27 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 20:17:27 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <99Dec8.015124cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> In-Reply-To: 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 GAA03087 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:17:17 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > The "double shot" is a layman's reference to a situation where a >player takes an action to gain advantage in a way that is not permitted >by the Laws, hoping to gain from a ruling. I agree with your description of the use of the term "double shot", except for the words "that is not permitted by the Laws". Attempting any kind of double shot is perfectly legal, it is up to the TD/AC to deny redress and thus ensure that it does not actually work as a double shot. > Once there is a fumble from the left, whatever that means, the spade >finesse is a better percentage than the squeeze. Needing to think before playing even though you do not have the key card in this situation is a bad error and may - through L73 - give away the contract. I have no problem with that. But it seems to me that it is not quite so reasonable that a purely mechanical fumble should cost the contract. If, as Grattan seems to suggest, it is not proper to say "Sorry, that was just a mechanical fumble" if you actually have the key card, then any fumble will effectively guarantee declarer a safe line in finesse or drop situations. If there is a fumble and an apology, declarer cannot fail by playing for the key card to be with the other opponent; if there is a fumble without apology, declarer cannot fail by playing for the key card to be with the fumbling player. The bottom line is that if you happen to fumble in such a situation, declarer will, regardless of apology or not, do the right thing, possibly with the TD's help. I think this is the current normal interpretation of the laws, and I find it hard on people who sometimes make mechanical fumbles. But I admit that it is not easy to come up with a really good alternative that is not hard on the non-offending opponents. I think the following could be improvements: (a) Make it clear that after a mechanical fumble, you may and should apologize regardless of your holding. (b) Change L73F2 to make it clear that score adjustments are to be given only when the false inference was one that could reasonably be induced by the opponent's action (though I agree that in practice we rule that way already). (c) Allow TD's to give L12C3 adjustments, so that the TD could do what the Danish NAC did. > Of course, once you have decided that there was consequent damage, you >adjust, and under L12C3 you may give a weighted score. That does not >interest me. I would probably have given 100% of 6C=, but 75% of 6C=, >25% of 6C-1 is perfectly acceptable, and I have no difficulties with >that. Agreed. The L12C3 possibility does solve much of my problem with L73F2. > I thus consider he Danish NAC was wrong, since there was no case for a >split score: they have decided that declarer's actions in taking a >superior line were irrational, wild or gambling. In my view the Danish >NAC has misunderstood the Laws in this area rather than that their >judgement is flawed. I do not think that they have found declarer's actions irrational, wild or gambling; the written decision does not say so. They have chosen to use the L12C2 recipe directly for one side, but give a weighted average for the other side, thus creating a difference in the result much like the one that can result from the difference between "likely" and "at all probable". What is wrong with that? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 06:17:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 06:17:50 +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 GAA03085 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 06:17:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27718 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 20:17:30 +0100 Received: from ip197.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.197), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb27713; Sat Dec 11 20:17:28 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 20:17:28 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <028f01bf4216$11635720$e8e0868b@gillp.bigpond.com> <02cd01bf428b$57e25000$ca0ebad1@gw.totalweb.net> In-Reply-To: <02cd01bf428b$57e25000$ca0ebad1@gw.totalweb.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 GAA03086 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:21:22 -0500, "Bill Bickford" wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 11:13 AM >Subject: Re: Fw: Innocent or double shot? > > > > >> You calculate the imps first, not last. The IMP scale is designed to >> compare two real scores not two unreal ones. >> >How do you reconcile this with Imp Pairs scored under Butler scoring? There is a difference. Butler scoring at pairs is a way of scoring that is different from IMP scoring in a teams event. It was created in order to get a pairs game with an approximation of teams stragety. But it is only an approximation - the correct strategy at Butler pairs is not the same as at teams (it is somewhere between pairs and teams strategy), precisely because the IMP scale is not used to compare actual results. Cross-IMPs is becoming more and more popular as a replacement for Butler in these days of computer scoring. When assigning a score for a teams game, we want to use the IMP scale in the way it is being used in teams games: i.e., to compare actual scores. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 06:22:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 06:22:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA03122 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 06:22:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 11:22:08 -0800 Message-ID: <001801bf440d$029a6640$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Nancy T Dressing" , References: <199912101844.NAA27400@cfa183.harvard.edu> <009f01bf439c$dd8b0d20$2860040c@momsputer> Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 11:21:25 -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 From: Nancy T Dressing > From: Steve Willner > > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > How can players be expected to follow the rules if there is no easy > > way for them to find out what the rules are? > > > There is an easy way for players to learn the rules. There is a book > available from most book dealers titled "Bridge Player's Companion" by > Larry Harris, 10.95 member price from the ACBL, and another one I have seen > at Tournaments on the Baron Barclay Book table which looks very much like > our law book but is aimed at the player. The title escapes me as does BB's > catalog but is something like the Bridge Player's Law book. Also Alfred > Sheinwold's "5 Week to Winning Bridge" contained a printing of all the laws. > No wonder that was called the "Bible" for so many years. One not only > learned to play bridge but learned the laws also. Maybe some of our authors > of books for beginneres should include this valuable information. Nancy > Also, sorry I left the word don't out of my stop card joke. Should have > read " Why we Don't use the stop card in Pinehurst." But we seem to be > leaving that word out a lot in bridge these days. Perhaps the ACBL should inform members of these "easy" ways to obtain the Laws. They are provided on the ACBL web site, of course, but are not downloadable (in principle) because of a stern copyright notice. A little "civil disobedience" might be in order here. To download a copy of the Laws legally, you have to go to Europe (e.g., the WBF web site) and get a slightly different version of the Laws. Maybe the ACBL should give an abbreviated version of the Laws, and ACBL regulations too, to all members. Every organization has the obligation to supply its members with its rules. The Laws of rubber bridge are not included on the ACBL web site, as they are in Europe. That is sad. The ACBL: is supposed to be promoting bridge in general, not just its own games. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 07:12:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 07:12:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03216 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 07:12:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from office.ripe.net (office.ripe.net [193.0.1.97]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA16123; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 21:11:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA20319; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 21:11:47 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 21:11:47 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Steve Willner cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Boston conditions In-Reply-To: <199912111800.NAA28566@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Linda Trent" > > Well - first there were two sites, in two hotels that were a good > > 15 min. walk apart. > > The path between the two hotels was an indoor corridor, and it took me > only about two or three minutes. Admittedly I'm a fast walker, but 15 > minutes is way too pessimistic unless you get lost. The outdoor walk > was a short city block. 4-5 minutes at normal speed and there were signs all over the place. > > When the National events had big fields, everyone was crammed > > into a too small space and on two floors of the Westin. > > The only day I played in the Westin was fine, but it was the Friday > after Thanksgiving. I wouldn't be surprised if other days were worse. I didn't see any problem except on the first day of the LM pairs, when the turnout was much higher than expected and a section or two had to be moved from Westin to Marriott at game-time. > That said, there is no doubt that Boston is a relatively expensive city. > There are less expensive hotels but not downtown. Boston is considered > a desirable destination for both business and tourism, and the result is > higher prices than less desirable cities. Actually, I think that the ACBL got a pretty good deal on the hotel rooms in the Marriott ($105/night). I attended a conference in Washington DC, the week before the NABC and paid $150/night for a similar room (size, comfort, etc). Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 07:22:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 07:22:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03268 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 07:22:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA10719 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:21:55 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <008d01bf43b5$fb296980$bf5408c3@dodona> References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com><001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080 @isi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:14:56 -0500 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 8:58 AM +0000 12/11/99, Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: > David Grabiner wrote: >> At 7:10 PM -0800 12/9/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >So opening a 9 HCP weak notrump, announced to the opponents as a >> >routine 9-12, is cheating? I don't think so. >> >> Clarification: Cheating is only the *deliberate* violation of a regulation, >> with knowledge that what you are doing is wrong. This includes playing >> illegal conventions, although the ACBL's right to define some of these >> conventions may not be authorized. >+=+ Sorry. I have not quite grasped what 'conventions' >this might refer to. Can you give me a clear example? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The ACBL says that it is illegal to play Stayman over a 9-12 NT opening, just as it says that it is illegal to play a Multi-2D in most events. I believe it has the right to forbid either, and it is a serious violation to knowingly play an illegal convention. However, I do not believe that the ACBL has the right to say that it is illegal to play Stayman over a 1NT opening which shows 10-12 HCP if partner uses his judgment to open occasional 9-counts, or to play Blackwood over a 5-11 HCP weak 2-bid if partner uses his judgment to open occasional 4-counts (or 12-counts). In fact, the ACBL forbids the first but not the second. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 07:46:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 07:46:35 +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 HAA03359 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 07:46:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveg20.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.64.64]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA25227 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:46:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991211090625.0076f1e0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:06:25 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 In-Reply-To: <007201bf4365$f0148de0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <3.0.1.32.19991210003514.00766e90@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:26 PM 12/10/99 -0800, Marvin wrote: >It is perfectly ok for the TD to get input from players if he feels he >needs it, but the time for this is not in the middle of a deal (stealing >round time from the players), and not by asking for a rushed answer to a >poor question, unless it is possible that the last call bid by a NO might >be changed. I agree that timing can be a problem. And if a player appears uncertain or unwilling to provide a useful answer, then so be it. But in the problem before us, it is not difficult to imagine that the West player could answer the question in not much more time than he would at the table. With his holding, the double of a conventional 2C bid does stand out. >The TD usually can decide a case on the evidence of the cards and from >experience. S/he will listen to contrary opinions of the players, I hope, >before the ruling is cast in concrete. When s/he feels the need for player >input, that can be obtained in a less hectic manner than hauling people >away from the table. From what I observe, players are less likely to argue >a poor position strongly after the TD makes a tentative ruling than >before. Furthermore, there is an appeals process. Not usually in club games. >L12C2 does not require exact knowledge of what might have >happened, as the 1/3-1/6 guidelines of the ACBL LC make clear. TDs are >demanding exact answers when it is not appropriate. If you say, "I don't >know without thinking about it," or "Just now I am not sure what I would >have done," you are told that you must give a definite answer now or the >matter is closed. This is not due process. I definitely agree with you there. >Anyway, I agree completely with David Stevenson's comments, which I admire >especially as coming from a TD (many of whom want to get a matter over >with too quickly). > >Now the question is, should a player go meekly when summoned from the >table, or what? Meekly? I have some trouble imagining you doing anything meekly, Marv ;). But to politely obey the TD's instruction, even when it seems ill-considered, does seem appropriate. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 10:42:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 10:42:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03742 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 10:42:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:42:37 -0800 Message-ID: <002801bf4431$66e604a0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:42:16 -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 Thanks to Adam Wildavsky for saying it so much better than I did! Well done, Adam! Marv (Marvin L. French) > At 1:41 AM -0500 12/9/99, Tony wrote: > >I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm > >just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. > > Thanks for asking! This is a good example hand. I don't think your > ruling was correct, but I wouldn't say it was "bad" - I've seen many > worse. > > The key to applying the Laws correctly here is to consider their > purpose. The Laws require full disclosure of each sides' methods. If > they did not the game would be much different, and I think most of us > agree much poorer. The Laws could achieve full disclosure by > mandating that everyone use the same methods. Fortunately they do > not. Instead they attempt to make sure that a pair always has the > opportunity to do at least as well as they would have had they known > their opponents' methods completely. > > I have heard the argument many times, including in this thread, that > one should base the ruling on what would have happened had screens > been in place. That is on the right track, but it's artificial and > overly complicated. As has also been pointed out in this thread, one > should base the 12C2 adjustment on what would have been likely and at > all probable had the infraction not occurred. Since the infraction is > misinformation another way of arriving at a result is to consider > what would likely have happened had EW known their opponents' > methods. We cannot and should not consider how they might have known. > They are entitled to know their opponents' methods completely, as if > they had been playing with and against them for years, or as if they > had read the same system book, or sat with them while they filled in > their convention card. EW are also entitled to know that North did > not alert the response, which may indicate that, for whatever reason, > he was unaware of its meaning. > > Now the pieces easily fall into place. What would have happened had > West known that 2C was Drury and known that North had not alerted it? > It seems likely that he would have passed. We need consider his > action no further. What would have happened had East known that 2C > was Drury? Surely he would have passed. We may consider his bid > execrable even had South held clubs. I do. That is not relevant, > since he'd surely have been more likely to pass with correct > information than he was with the misinformation he implicitly > received. > > Could East have been after a double shot? It's possible, since he > could have been aware of the infraction, but it seems unlikely. I > certainly see no reason to pursue the matter. We have no reason to > believe that EW have committed an infraction, and every reason to > believe NS have. > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 11:33:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:33:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03923 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:32:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 16:32:47 -0800 Message-ID: <006601bf4438$68d04440$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com><001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 16:23:39 -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: > Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: > > > David Grabiner wrote: > > >> Marvin L. French wrote: > >> > >> >So opening a 9 HCP weak notrump, announced to the opponents as a > >> >routine 9-12, is cheating? I don't think so. > >> > >> Clarification: Cheating is only the *deliberate* violation of a regulation, > >> with knowledge that what you are doing is wrong. This includes playing > >> illegal conventions, although the ACBL's right to define some of these > >> conventions may not be authorized. > > >+=+ Sorry. I have not quite grasped what 'conventions' > >this might refer to. Can you give me a clear example? > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > The ACBL says that it is illegal to play Stayman over a 9-12 NT opening, > just as it says that it is illegal to play a Multi-2D in most events. I > believe it has the right to forbid either, and it is a serious violation to > knowingly play an illegal convention. > > However, I do not believe that the ACBL has the right to say that it is > illegal to play Stayman over a 1NT opening which shows 10-12 HCP if partner > uses his judgment to open occasional 9-counts, or to play Blackwood over a > 5-11 HCP weak 2-bid if partner uses his judgment to open occasional > 4-counts (or 12-counts). > In fact, the ACBL forbids the first but not the second. > The second is forbidden on the Limited Convention Chart, not the GCC or higher.chart. Not just for ranges greater than 7 HCP, but also if the bid suit bid can have fewer than five cards. The only other regulation I can find on weak two bids of 2D, 2H, or 2S is that an Alert is required if the range "employed" exceeds 7 HCP. This is on page 1 of 4, ACBL Regulations on Conventional Bids and Carding. This seems to say that you can have a wider range than 7 HCP for GCC and higher events, no "judgment" involved, provided there is an Alert, and still use conventions. I didn't know that, and if I'm wrong someone please correct me. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 11:51:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:51:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from NS.F1.NET.AU ([203.30.219.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03981 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:51:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([203.30.219.159]) by NS.F1.NET.AU with ESMTP (IPAD 2.0) id 8977000 ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:42:10 EST From: "Fred D Curtis" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:32:07 +1100 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 Message-Id: <199912121642.8977000@NS.F1.NET.AU> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Everyone deserves to lose. Choice of conventions, choice of bids, choice of defence! Procedural penalty awarded against NS for failing to alert (say 1/4 board). E/W deserve their bad board for the egregious balance! (althpogh I am still trying to work out why 4H didn't make- pique in play?) ---------- > From: Kooijman, A. > To: 'ac342@freenet.carleton.ca'; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 > Date: Friday, 10 December 1999 19:51 > > This is a perfect candidate for the yearly to be organized Christmas puzzle > in BLML-land. What is the worst decision taken? > You may choose: > > 1) Playing with this North > 2) Using a convention in which a weak hand has to make a reverse call > 3) Not reaching 4 hearts > 4) Balancing with 2 diamonds > 5) The TD decision > 6) The AC decision > > We will pick a winner among the majority voters > > The prize is being allowed not to read BLML for one week. Eventually > curiosity wins. > > ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca [mailto:ac342@freenet.carleton.ca] > Verzonden: donderdag 9 december 1999 7:42 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 > > > I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm > just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. > Tony (aka ac342) > Matchpoints > Board 15 S QJT S W N E > Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P > NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D > C 54 2H P P P > S 9652 S K8 > H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not alerted > D Q63 D T982 > C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS > S A743 > H A9852 Before the opening lead, South > D 74 informed the opps that there > C Q8 had been a failure to alert > 2C. > EW called the director. > The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an > artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S > would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). > Away from the table, W said that had he been properly informed, he would not > have balanced; East claimed that he would have doubled clubs. The director > told the players to play the hand out. After a result was obtained, EW > asked the director to review the hand. The director decided: > result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result > had the irregularity not occured; > NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that > was at all probable. > NS appealed. The committee upheld the director's ruling; there was some > thought to adjusting EW to +300, but they decided to keep the result as > it was. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 12:06:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:06:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from NS.F1.NET.AU ([203.30.219.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04028 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:06:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([203.30.219.159]) by NS.F1.NET.AU with ESMTP (IPAD 2.0) id 8979100 ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:57:05 EST From: "Fred D Curtis" To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:05:34 +1100 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 Message-Id: <199912121657.8979100@NS.F1.NET.AU> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The whole tempo thing is getting out of hand. Bridge is not a game for metronomes! There are quite obviously auctions which are complex - and those that are not. Similarly there are hands which come up in MSC where a first or second round choice is close and requires considerable thought or analysis. Attempts to legislate time are for bureaucrats (with respect). Again it is directors and officials who forget it is a player's game- and part of its charm is the analysis of complex inferences - from the bidding itself, and not the pauses (or lack thereof). One trusts that the dinging button nominated below was a facetious note. Those of us who do not use Stop cards (on a jurisdictional basis) have noticed no loss. if bridge is to survive as a social game and not just as a computer driven plaything, it requires a human element - and not machine-like precision. No one should take inferences from the time taken, and in some cases it may amount to UI - but that is a long way from the need to create a cure which is worse than the disease! ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: Stop card > Date: Friday, 10 December 1999 15:37 > > Michael Schmahl wrote: > > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > : My own preference would be for the stop card to be left out for 10 s, > > : preferably timed on a wristwatch.* > > Why not a 10-second timer on every table? Push a button and it dings after 10 > seconds. > > > > I would like to see the Stop Card regulations better enforced as well. > > I nearly always make the required pause, and usualy find that there is > > something worth thinking about, perhaps my opening lead, or what to do if > > partner balances, etc. > > And even when you have nothing to think about, no doubt you act as if you do, > studying your hand intently. I estimate that only about 1% of players do that, > even though it is required by the ACBL Stop Card regulation. > > > > But another good reason I like to see the Stop Card used and obeyed is > > that when partner makes a skip bid, I usually also need the time to decide > > on my call. If my RHO calls too quickly, I am put in an awkward tempo > > situation. > > Good point. Moreover, there are many tempo-sensitive situations other than skip > bids that could use a required pause. Some places require a pause by everyone on > the first round of bidding, which seems like a good idea. > > The 10-second duration seems somewhat excessive for those not playing in an > important national championship. I have never seen anyone wait that long unless > they (sic) have a real problem . Maybe the time should be reduced to a more > realistic five seconds for lesser events, in order to get more support for > proper use of the Stop Card. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 12:54:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:54:51 +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 MAA04146 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:54:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.95] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11wyDU-0007yN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 01:54:28 +0000 Message-ID: <002001bf4443$dc903880$5f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.19991210215421.0084e8b0@mail.maine.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.19991211111848.00859100@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: alternate evaluation methods Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 01:51:27 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! ================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Goodwin To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 4:18 PM Subject: alternate evaluation methods > At 08:50 AM 12/11/99 -0000, Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: > > >> At 05:38 PM 12/10/99 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> >+=+ Law 40 D gives unlimited power as soon as > >> >a partnership understanding is deemed to exist; > >> >as, for example, in the case of a habitual action > >> >or one that has been discussed. An isolated > >> >occasion is trickier if it can be argued successfully > >> >that there is no partnership understanding. [We > >> >are discussing initial action on hands of 8 HCP or > >> >less] +=+ > >> > >> I don't see any reference to HCP in Law 40D. > >> > >+=+ Agreed. It is commonly treated in this way > >for the sake of easy understanding and I thought > >the words would be generally understood. In > >principle messages are better conveyed in a > >language that the sender and the receiver have > >in common. Anyone who wishes can express it > >in alternative terms, provided they are intelligible > >to the hearer/reader and define a hand that is of > >mean strength less the value of a King. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Let me see if you agree with this: > > 1. I may use an evaluation technique other than HCP to determine whether a > hand is "a king or more below average strength" provided I can supply the > opponents with an easy definition of the evaluation technique. > > 2. I can easily provide and example of a hand with fewer than 8 HCP that I > feel is less than a King below average strength: AQJTxxx x xx xxx would > seem to me to be as strong as Axx Kxx Qxx Jxxx, or at any rate, less than a > King weaker. If you would like, I can provide a simple evaluation > technique which takes into account suit lengths which will value the first > example at least as high as the second (which is generally accepted to be > the "average hand"). > > 3. Since AQJTxxx x xx xxx is less than a King below average strength, a > Zonal organization does not have the authority to restrict me from having > an agreement to open this hand with a bid of one spade. > > 4. The ACBL has a regulation which prevents partnership from having an > agreement to open (at the one level) hand with fewer than 8 HCP. AQJTxxx x > xx xxx contains fewer than 8 HCP, so I may not agree with my partner to > open this hand one spade in an ACBL event. > > 5. The ACBL is in violation of the Laws. > +=+ I agree that you have a method of hand evaluation which deems your 7-1-2-3 hand to be less than a King below average strength. That is fine if you wish to value and describe hands so for your own purposes. However, I do not find anything in the laws which requires a regulating authority either (a) to countenance your method for purposes of compliance with regulations, or (b) to employ anything other than its own preferred method of evaluation when framing regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 12:54:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:54:52 +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 MAA04145 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:54:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.95] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11wyDS-0007yN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 01:54:27 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01bf4443$db9c1480$5f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com><001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 22:10:07 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! ================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: David J. Grabiner To: Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 8:14 PM Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods > At 8:58 AM +0000 12/11/99, Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: > > > David Grabiner wrote: > > >> At 7:10 PM -0800 12/9/99, Marvin L. French wrote: > >> > >> >So opening a 9 HCP weak notrump, announced to the opponents as a > >> >routine 9-12, is cheating? I don't think so. > >> > >> Clarification: Cheating is only the *deliberate* violation of a regulation, > >> with knowledge that what you are doing is wrong. This includes playing > >> illegal conventions, although the ACBL's right to define some of these > >> conventions may not be authorized. > > >+=+ Sorry. I have not quite grasped what 'conventions' > >this might refer to. Can you give me a clear example? > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > The ACBL says that it is illegal to play Stayman over a 9-12 NT opening, > just as it says that it is illegal to play a Multi-2D in most events. I > believe it has the right to forbid either, and it is a serious violation to > knowingly play an illegal convention. > > However, I do not believe that the ACBL has the right to say that it is > illegal to play Stayman over a 1NT opening which shows 10-12 HCP if partner > uses his judgment to open occasional 9-counts, or to play Blackwood over a > 5-11 HCP weak 2-bid if partner uses his judgment to open occasional > 4-counts (or 12-counts). > In fact, the ACBL forbids the first but not the second. > +=+ These are not regulations which govern the use of natural 1NT openers; they are regulations which govern the use of conventions. They are made under the powers granted in Law 40D where it says: "The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions." This power is entirely unrestricted. The regulating authority has the power to forbid use of a convention in whatever circumstances it may decide. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 13:04:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 13:04:25 +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 NAA04190 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 13:04:18 +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 VAA22754; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 21:04:08 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006601bf4438$68d04440$d5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com><001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080 @isi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 21:02:43 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:23 PM -0800 12/11/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >David Grabiner wrote: >> The ACBL says that it is illegal to play Stayman over a 9-12 NT opening, >> just as it says that it is illegal to play a Multi-2D in most events. I >> believe it has the right to forbid either, and it is a serious violation to >> knowingly play an illegal convention. >> >> However, I do not believe that the ACBL has the right to say that it is >> illegal to play Stayman over a 1NT opening which shows 10-12 HCP if partner >> uses his judgment to open occasional 9-counts, or to play Blackwood over a >> 5-11 HCP weak 2-bid if partner uses his judgment to open occasional >> 4-counts (or 12-counts). > >> In fact, the ACBL forbids the first but not the second. >The second is forbidden on the Limited Convention Chart, not the GCC or >higher.chart. Not just for ranges greater than 7 HCP, but also if the bid suit >bid can have fewer than five cards. Blackwood may have been the wrong example. On the GCC, item 6 under Responses and Rebids: "6.ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards.)" Blackwood may be allowed anyway because it is allowed under item 8 (calls that ask for aces, kings, queens, voids, singletons, and trump quality.) However, other conventional responses such as Ogust 2NT are not allowed. (Feature-asking 2NT would apparently be allowed if the responses are mandatory; partner must show his cheapest side ace or king even with a minimum, bid 3NT with AKQ in the suit, or rebid the suit otherwise; he cannot suppress a feature or bid a side four-card suit at the 4-level.) The Limited Chart has the same rules, but the way they are written makes it clear that Blackwood over a wide-range weak 2-bid is forbidden. The rule allowing ace-asking bids explicitly says, "with the exceptions noted above" (which include a ban on conventions over wide-range weak 2-bids.) I don't know what the ACBL's intention was on the GCC; item 8 does not defer explicitly to any other item on the list, and item 9, dealing with wide-range NT, does says explicitly "no conventional responses or rebids". The Mid-Chart allows all constructive conventions except over wide-range NT bids. The ACBL rule in 1987 was as I thought it still is; you may not use any conventional response or rebid after a NT opening which you agree could have less than 10 HCP, a wide-range NT, or a wide-range weak 2-bid. The rule changed in some recent revision. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 15:17:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:17:23 +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 PAA04500 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:17:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from momsputer (pm6-33.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.230]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Sandhills) with SMTP id XAA05415 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:17:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001601bf4458$0f68cb00$e660040c@momsputer> From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: References: <199912101844.NAA27400@cfa183.harvard.edu> <009f01bf439c$dd8b0d20$2860040c@momsputer> <001801bf440d$029a6640$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:19:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have to disagree that the ACBL should give us all a copy of the laws, etc. There is nothing that prevents any player from purchasing any book they have made an effort to make available to their members. What kind of "civil disobedience" do you recommend? It seems to me that there is plenty going on now with players not abiding by the laws, Directors not enforcing the laws, club owners not promoting and encouraging players to be aware of the laws, players who should be contributing to the coffers of the ACBL by paying dues or assessed fees which would help them fund more projects, and the list could go on. We at the ground level have to build the foundation and it will grow. The best is not what seems to trickle down, only the waste, good stuff grows and we have to be the fertilizer and the weed killers. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Nancy T Dressing ; Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Stop card > > From: Nancy T Dressing > > > From: Steve Willner > > > > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > > How can players be expected to follow the rules if there is no easy > > > way for them to find out what the rules are? > > > > > There is an easy way for players to learn the rules. There is a book > > available from most book dealers titled "Bridge Player's Companion" by > > Larry Harris, 10.95 member price from the ACBL, and another one I have seen > > at Tournaments on the Baron Barclay Book table which looks very much like > > our law book but is aimed at the player. The title escapes me as does BB's > > catalog but is something like the Bridge Player's Law book. Also Alfred > > Sheinwold's "5 Week to Winning Bridge" contained a printing of all the laws. > > No wonder that was called the "Bible" for so many years. One not only > > learned to play bridge but learned the laws also. Maybe some of our authors > > of books for beginneres should include this valuable information. Nancy > > Also, sorry I left the word don't out of my stop card joke. Should have > > read " Why we Don't use the stop card in Pinehurst." But we seem to be > > leaving that word out a lot in bridge these days. > > Perhaps the ACBL should inform members of these "easy" ways to > obtain the Laws. They are provided on the ACBL web site, of course, > but are not downloadable (in principle) because of a stern copyright > notice. A little "civil disobedience" might be in order here. To > download a copy of the Laws legally, you have to go to Europe (e.g., > the WBF web site) and get a slightly different version of the Laws. > > Maybe the ACBL should give an abbreviated version of the Laws, and > ACBL regulations too, to all members. Every organization has the > obligation to supply its members with its rules. > > The Laws of rubber bridge are not included on the ACBL web site, as > they are in Europe. That is sad. The ACBL: is supposed to be > promoting bridge in general, not just its own games. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 15:37:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:37:19 +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 PAA04535 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:37:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-212-202.s456.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.212.202] helo=hdavis) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 11x0kL-0006DS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:36:33 -0500 Message-ID: <001401bf445a$5fad46c0$cad43ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2BE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:35:51 -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 My vote goes to the balance of 2D. Very close to being sufficiently wild, gambling, and irrational to break the link between the infraction and damage. (Staying out of 4H was not that bad a decision. At least they matched the contract to their card play.) Hirsch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: ; Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 3:51 AM Subject: RE: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 > This is a perfect candidate for the yearly to be organized Christmas puzzle > in BLML-land. What is the worst decision taken? > You may choose: > > 1) Playing with this North > 2) Using a convention in which a weak hand has to make a reverse call > 3) Not reaching 4 hearts > 4) Balancing with 2 diamonds > 5) The TD decision > 6) The AC decision > > We will pick a winner among the majority voters > > The prize is being allowed not to read BLML for one week. Eventually > curiosity wins. > > ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca [mailto:ac342@freenet.carleton.ca] > Verzonden: donderdag 9 december 1999 7:42 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 > > > I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm > just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. > Tony (aka ac342) > Matchpoints > Board 15 S QJT S W N E > Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P > NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D > C 54 2H P P P > S 9652 S K8 > H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not alerted > D Q63 D T982 > C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS > S A743 > H A9852 Before the opening lead, South > D 74 informed the opps that there > C Q8 had been a failure to alert > 2C. > EW called the director. > The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an > artifical 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; 2S > would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). > Away from the table, W said that had he been properly informed, he would not > have balanced; East claimed that he would have doubled clubs. The director > told the players to play the hand out. After a result was obtained, EW > asked the director to review the hand. The director decided: > result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result > had the irregularity not occured; > NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that > was at all probable. > NS appealed. The committee upheld the director's ruling; there was some > thought to adjusting EW to +300, but they decided to keep the result as > it was. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 17:23:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:23:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from slot0-65.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (root@slot0-65.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04777 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:23:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-134.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA30476 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 00:58:11 -0500 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 00:58:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Stop card Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'd like to highlight a few points of the regulation that Richard quoted. In the ACBL, proper procedure is: 1. Place Stop card on the table 2. Place your bid on the table 3. Replace Stop card in the bidding box That is, the hand following the skip bid is responsible for the pause. The other point most often missed is that the hand following the skip bid is expected to pause on any skip bid, even if the Stop card is not used. Note that this differs from (in my understanding anyway) the regulation used in Great Britain. In the EBU proper procedure is: 1. Place stop card on the table 2. Place your bid on the table 3. Wait 10 seconds 4. Replace Stop card in the bidding box Unfortunately, many folks in the ACBL use the British regulations. My first impression was that the British way was inferior; DWS has since convinced me that the EBU regulation is at least as good (and perhaps better). However, either way works better than half the players using the EBU method and the other half using the ACBL method. I'll attempt to summarize the discussion. Folks should be encouraged to use the stop card (or verbal skip bid warning) for every skip bid. It helps prevent second hand from passing UI to fourth hand. It also helps prevent third hand from passing UI to the skip bidder after a quick pass. Always use the regulations enacted by the SO of the game, even if the ones used on the other side of the pond are better. In the ACBL this means that the skip bidder does *not* establish tempo. Always pause after any skip bid, even if the auction goes 1N-P-3N-... -- one day you'll need the time to consider making a penalty double or bidding with a freak hand and you won't have it. Pause even if the skip bidder didn't use the stop card (or verbal skip bid warning). If a club player doesn't pause when you use the stop card, *partner* should pause instead -- that way you won't be barred. Make a note to explain the purpose of the stop card to the player after the game. If the player is experienced, always call the TD. If you teach new players, include proper use of the stop card in your lessons. With any luck, this should also encourage the better players to use good procedure. Some will be shamed into it -- they won't want to use poorer procedure than the folks in the novice game, especially when they understand the issues better! Bruce Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin wrote: : On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Nancy T Dressing wrote: :>{snip} Nancy includes stop cards in her lessons. : Nowadays, experienced players are supposed to hesitate even if the stop card : is not used. How many do you know that do?? : Richard B. Odlin : ******************** : Skip Bid Warnings : 1. How and When Made : Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, : prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of : bidding: : a. When bidding orally by saying, "I am about to make a skip : bid. Please wait!" : b. When using bidding boxes, by placing the stop card so that LHO : sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's : attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is replaced in the : bidding box. : 2. Skip Bidder : The skip bid warning may not be used to alert partner that a : strength-showing bid is being made or not being made. The warning : should be used all the time. : : The tournament director may assess a procedural penalty (Law 90) for : failure to comply. : 3. Opponents of Skip Bidder : a. All Players : When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip : bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In : waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an : active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied : during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most : improper. : b. Experienced Players : Experienced players are expected to maintain proper tempo whether : a skip bid is announced or not. : 4. Questioning : After a skip bid, players may ask questions but must still pause an : appropriate amount of time for study. : 5. Failure to Pause : When a player acts with undue haste or hesitation, the tournament : director may award an adjusted score (Law 16) and/or procedural penalty : (Law 90). : 6. Where Used : The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. For sanctioned : games at clubs, the club may elect to discourage its use and require no : mandated pause. : *************** From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 17:58:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:58:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04899 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:58:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 22:58:20 -0800 Message-ID: <006701bf446e$461780e0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil><199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca><009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil><3.0.1.32.19991210003514.00766e90@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991211090625.0076f1e0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 22:58:14 -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 Mike Dennis wrote: > Marvin wrote: > > > >Now the question is, should a player go meekly when summoned from the > >table, or what? > > Meekly? I have some trouble imagining you doing anything meekly, Marv ;). > But to politely obey the TD's instruction, even when it seems > ill-considered, does seem appropriate. > I never do that, except when the instruction is that I must answer an inappropriate question. Then, meek as I am, I just say I need more time to think, which is never granted. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 19:02:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 19:02:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05089 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 19:02:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 00:02:37 -0800 Message-ID: <00a701bf4477$410f9340$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912101844.NAA27400@cfa183.harvard.edu> <009f01bf439c$dd8b0d20$2860040c@momsputer> <001801bf440d$029a6640$d5075e18@san.rr.com> <001601bf4458$0f68cb00$e660040c@momsputer> Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 00:01:22 -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 From: Nancy T Dressing > I have to disagree that the ACBL should give us all a copy of the laws, > etc. There is nothing that prevents any player from purchasing any book > they have made an effort to make available to their members. What kind of > "civil disobedience" do you recommend? I think my drift was clear. I wouldn't want to "recommend" an illegal act. Marv (Marvin L. French) > > From: Marvin L. French > > > > Perhaps the ACBL should inform members of these "easy" ways to > > obtain the Laws. They are provided on the ACBL web site, of course, > > but are not downloadable (in principle) because of a stern copyright > > notice. A little "civil disobedience" might be in order here. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 12 21:11:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:11:13 +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 VAA05307 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:11:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-189.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.189]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04217 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:10:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:57:39 +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: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Adam, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > I have heard the argument many times, including in this thread, that > one should base the ruling on what would have happened had screens > been in place. That is on the right track, but it's artificial and > overly complicated. As has also been pointed out in this thread, one > should base the 12C2 adjustment on what would have been likely and at > all probable had the infraction not occurred. Since the infraction is > misinformation another way of arriving at a result is to consider > what would likely have happened had EW known their opponents' > methods. We cannot and should not consider how they might have known. > They are entitled to know their opponents' methods completely, as if > they had been playing with and against them for years, or as if they > had read the same system book, or sat with them while they filled in > their convention card. EW are also entitled to know that North did > not alert the response, which may indicate that, for whatever reason, > he was unaware of its meaning. > This is all quite correct. > Now the pieces easily fall into place. What would have happened had > West known that 2C was Drury and known that North had not alerted it? This isn't. In the abstract form of the game, EW know their opponent's system better than NS do, so there is no need to have alerts. The alert, or the absense of one, is Authorized but not-Entitled Information (AnEI). So the question one should be asking is : What would have happened had West known that 2C was Drury. I am not going to answer that one, but I wanted to comment on the question. I believe the answer may well be different from yours Adam, since the question is fundamentally different. > It seems likely that he would have passed. We need consider his > action no further. What would have happened had East known that 2C > was Drury? Surely he would have passed. We may consider his bid > execrable even had South held clubs. I do. That is not relevant, > since he'd surely have been more likely to pass with correct > information than he was with the misinformation he implicitly > received. > Correct, but answering the wrong question (IMHO). > Could East have been after a double shot? It's possible, since he > could have been aware of the infraction, but it seems unlikely. I > certainly see no reason to pursue the matter. We have no reason to > believe that EW have committed an infraction, and every reason to > believe NS have. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 02:18:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 02:18:54 +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 CAA06342 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 02:18:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29886 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 16:18:36 +0100 Received: from ip91.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.91), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda29883; Sun Dec 12 16:18:26 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 16:18:26 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <38522013.ED6210D7@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 CAA06343 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:57:39 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Now the pieces easily fall into place. What would have happened had >> West known that 2C was Drury and known that North had not alerted it? > >This isn't. > >In the abstract form of the game, EW know their opponent's >system better than NS do, so there is no need to have >alerts. >The alert, or the absense of one, is Authorized but >not-Entitled Information (AnEI). I am not quite sure what you mean here. There was no alert at the table. This is AI to EW. The only "abstract" thing about the situation is that we are trying to imagine what would be a "likely" (L12C2) outcome if EW knew NS's system. A situation where N had alerted is irrelevant. If it is considered likely that W would choose to pass when N does not alert 2C, then we should adjust based on that. So I agree completely with Adam. And now for a slightly different hypothetical case: What if W actually _had_ known NS's system and therefore had passed, and it then turned out that N knew his system perfectly well, he had just forgotten to alert? It seems obvious to me that W's choice of pass is then at his own risk, and that he should get no redress if he ends up with a worse score than the one that would result from doubling 2C. He is entitled to know NS's system, not to know whether N has forgotten his system. In other words, I do not believe that forgetting to alert is a mannerism that can result in a L73F2 adjustment when opponents are not actually misled about the meaning of the call. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 04:22:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 04:22:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA06600 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 04:22:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 09:22:37 -0800 Message-ID: <00b801bf44c5$7d46c7e0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com><001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> <001f01bf4443$db9c1480$5f5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 09:21:54 -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 > > > +=+ These are not regulations which govern the use of natural > 1NT openers; they are regulations which govern the use of > conventions. They are made under the powers granted in Law > 40D where it says: "The sponsoring organization may regulate > the use of bidding or play conventions." This power is entirely > unrestricted. The regulating authority has the power to forbid > use of a convention in whatever circumstances it may decide. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > This reminds me of the psych paradox. The Laws say it's okay to psych a convention, while the WBFLC says that the authority to regulate a convention includes the power to bar the psyching of that convention. Now we have another paradox. The Laws do not authorize the regulation of partnership understandings that are not conventions except for ultra-light initial actions at the one level, while Grattan opines that regulating a partnership understanding by barring conventions in conjunction with it is okay. I don't see why the authority to regulate conventions should include the power to discriminate against players who employ unpopular ranges for natural bids. Allowing some pairs to use Stayman, while forbidding it to those whose 1NT range is not favored, is unfair. The Laws should state that regulations concerning a convention must apply equally to all. The principle is known as "equal protection under the Laws." Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 04:52:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 04:52:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA06696 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 04:52:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 09:52:41 -0800 Message-ID: <00c001bf44c9$b06e5800$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 09:46:18 -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: > > And now for a slightly different hypothetical case: > > What if W actually _had_ known NS's system and therefore had > passed, and it then turned out that N knew his system perfectly > well, he had just forgotten to alert? > > It seems obvious to me that W's choice of pass is then at his own > risk, and that he should get no redress if he ends up with a > worse score than the one that would result from doubling 2C. He > is entitled to know NS's system, not to know whether N has > forgotten his system. In other words, I do not believe that > forgetting to alert is a mannerism that can result in a L73F2 > adjustment when opponents are not actually misled about the > meaning of the call. Then apply 72B1 if damage results, since failure to Alert 2C is likely to give E-W the impression that there has been a bidding misunderstanding, and opener "could have known" this. Otherwise a player could deliberately "forget" to Alert without fear of a score adjustment. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 07:12:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 07:12:43 +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 HAA06963 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 07:12:35 +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 11xFLz-000NBS-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 20:12:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:43:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> <011801bf42bd$3fc83200$d5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <011801bf42bd$3fc83200$d5075e18@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: >All these cheating methods are the subject of unenforced ACBL >regulations, and are much more deserving of caustic comments than >opening with an announced 1 HCP less than an "approved" minimum. >Civil disobedience for the purpose of changing unjust laws is >accepted more readily on this side of the ocean, evidently. Civil disobedience often is done at disadvantage to the doer: I am talking specifically of a player who will do something that he knows law-abiding people will not, and *knows* he is gaining an advantage over them, and claims it as a form of protest. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+3 late] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 07:12:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 07:12:45 +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 HAA06964 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 07:12:37 +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 11xFLz-000NBT-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 20:12:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:53:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 References: <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <3.0.1.32.19991210003514.00766e90@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991210003514.00766e90@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 07:12 PM 12/9/99 +0000, David S wrote: >> This is why this procedure should be taken out to sea and dumped. >>Whether the action counts as at all probable is a decision for the TD >>and AC, not to be got by bullying poor players in unfamiliar >>surroundings. > >Sorry, but I missed the post where someone endorsed bullying players. > >No one on this list has been a more consistent advocate of the practice of >asking a variety of questions in investigating MI and UI claims, so your >sudden lack of interest in West's opinion of his own likely course of >action is a startling reversal. I certainly agree that questions should not >be asked in a threatening way, and I disagree strongly with Marvin's >apparent willingness to frame the question in a way which prejudices the >answer in favor of the NOS (just as the questions should not be framed for >the opposite purpose). But I see nothing wrong and some potential value >from asking West how he might have bid if he had known what 2C really >meant. If he doesn't know (or is unwilling to make an admission against his >own interest), then no harm, no foul. But if he has a clear notion, and >especially when the proposed action converges so cleanly with the hand he >holds, then that does seem to make a pretty persuasive case for what would >actually happened absent the MI. What do we gain by having the TD >second-guess both the evidence of the cards and the word of the West player? The theory of what you say is impeccable - but it just won't work that way. A player who has not made up his mind already what he would do in a specific situation is taken away from the table and asked what he would bid. He is under the time pressure of being in the middle of a hand. He has other things to think about. He is not allowed to sit down, look at his cards, consider the nuances, feel the vibes from the table, the body-language of opponents. All these are legitimate parts of decision-making at this game - and all are taken away from him. He may have a number of possible answers: is he being asked to name them all? I think not, and yet the Law is based on *all* the possible answers he is considering and not the one he finally decides. You say if West does not know it does not matter - will the Director say that? Will the Director tell him to only answer if he is completely sure? Will the Director apply any pressure whatever to make him answer? You say there is no harm if he refuses to answer: it is against the Laws of the game to refuse to do what the Director tells you, so unless the Director makes it completely clear that he is allowed not to answer then many will feel constrained to. I talk of bullying: I am quite sure the Directors would not think of it that way nor intend it that way but the effect is one of bullying. Take the person away from his peers, put him under time pressure, make him answer a question he does not want to answer. I think it is a most unfortunate procedure, whose advantage is that it makes life easier for the Director, and its disadvantage is that it leads to injustice. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+3 late] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 11:11:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:11:03 +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 LAA07607 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:10:55 +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 <19991213001045.JMCZ17446.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 16:10:45 -0800 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: Boston conditions Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 16:07:40 -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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199912111800.NAA28566@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I didn't mean to sound as harsh as I guess I did.... I liked Boston - my comments were my perceptions and some were from a lot of the grumbling I heard from others. And yes, a lot of the problems could have been solved by ACBL. > > From: "Linda Trent" > > Well - first there were two sites, in two hotels that were a good > > 15 min. walk apart. > > The path between the two hotels was an indoor corridor, and it took me > only about two or three minutes. Admittedly I'm a fast walker, but 15 > minutes is way too pessimistic unless you get lost. The outdoor walk > was a short city block. I had to walk it several times a day, with a big pile of papers. My 15 minutes was actually conservative for me because I was including elevator travel time. I did a lot of my travelling at night, and had been told by several that the outside walk (which was a lot shorter) after dark was not safe for a female travelling alone. Then there was the night I served on a C&E Committee at the Marriott that ended after 2 am. Thank goodness my husband happened to come over, because there was two of us (female) that had to go back to the Westin and the mall route was locked up. Heck - we had to fight to get a hotel door opened to let us out. I agree that the distance was certainly acceptable for a NABC if you were playing and only had to take the trip to go play. It was way better than the Orlando situation where the convention center was a real hike. > > > When the National events had big fields, everyone was crammed > > into a too small space and on two floors of the Westin. > > The only day I played in the Westin was fine, but it was the Friday > after Thanksgiving. I wouldn't be surprised if other days were worse. Yes, the place had emptied out by then. Up until Wednesday it was pretty packed, the lighting was bad, and the temperature was not good. Like I said, one variable out of whack is ok, but when you get two or three, players get cranky. > > > The smoking area was in three small rooms at the Westin on > > the third floor and all the smoke leaked out into the lobby-like > > area that was shared by the playing area. > > Massachusetts has very strict laws generally prohibiting indoor > smoking. (Our European readers may need a minute or two to recover > from their shock.) I'm a bit surprised there was an indoor smoking > area at all. Nevertheless, it's fair to consider facilities for > smokers at future tournaments. Maybe we will have to restrict NABC's > to North Carolina and Kentucky (major tobacco-producing states, much > friendlier to smokers). I'm not saying this was necessarily a solveable problem. But, the situation we had was noticed and vocalized by many. Neither side was happy. I have no clue what the answer is but even though I don't smoke, I am not happy with the pretty bad treatment our smokers usually get. I don't know what we will do in Annaheim - CA is pretty militant about smoking - It wouldn't surprise me if you can't smoke anywhere indoors and it's going to be hotter than Hades outside (unless we get lucky). > This is just poor organization. At worst, an ACBL employee could have > run over to Staples (discount office supply store) and bought a copier > for $250 or so. The ACBL was disorganized in other ways too. I don't > think this has anything to do with Boston. > I didn't intend to imply that it had anything to do with Boston. I am just referring to the tournament by that name. Sorry for any confusion. I agree, the ACBL was disorganized in a lot of ways, and I bet if they improved, the other factors would be largely diminished. There are plenty of wonderful individuals that work for ACBL, the big picture needs some work. It's the piling on effect that I think disappoints people. > > Boston was very expensive. $28 a day to park your car at the > > hotel. > > A car?!! In Boston? Why would you bring a car? A train from the > distant suburbs is $4.85 round trip, including $2 for parking at the > station. Nearer suburbs are less. > > If you drove to Boston, you would have been better-advised to leave > your car somewhere outside the city where cheap parking is available, > then take a cab or train to the hotel. Also, driving in Boston is > something of an adventure, not recommended for those unfamiliar with > the local customs. (The colors on the stop lights have non-standard > meanings here, for example. Yellow means 'go'. Red means 'speed up'. > Green means you better stop for all the cars going through on the red.) > You certainly don't need or want a car for getting around downtown. My husband and I rent a car at every NABC to see some sights. This was the first time we didn't because the price to park was higher than the car rental. (San Francisco was close - it was $24 a day, but we drove from home so saved that way.) Even Chicago, a really expensive parking city, had $8 / day parking a block away. I have driven in Boston before - reminds me of Montreal :-) > > That said, there is no doubt that Boston is a relatively expensive city. > There are less expensive hotels but not downtown. Boston is considered > a desirable destination for both business and tourism, and the result is > higher prices than less desirable cities. Like I said, for me I guess it was the big pile of everything. Expensive alone doesn't bother me (I guess I am lucky that I don't need to worry so much about that) and I can't wait to go to New York and Hawaii. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 14:34:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:34:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08151 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:34:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-211-185.s185.tnt1.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.211.185] helo=hdavis) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 11xMEm-0007Yr-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 22:33:25 -0500 Message-ID: <001c01bf451a$b6d45c20$b9d33ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil><199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca><009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil><3.0.1.32.19991210003514.00766e90@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 22:32:41 -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: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 7:53 AM Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 > > I think it is a most unfortunate procedure, whose advantage is that it > makes life easier for the Director, and its disadvantage is that it > leads to injustice. > (speaking of a TD talking to a player away from the table about alternative actions after an infraction) I think it's an awkward and artificial procedure. I also think it's sometimes the only way to get information about what the player would have done before the player has seen the hand. If done badly, it can indeed lead to injustice. If done correctly, it may be the best way to get to the correct ruling on a particular hand. I don't like the procedure. I just haven't seen a better way to get certain information before it is tainted. Its disadvantage is indeed that it can lead to injustice if done incorrectly. Its advantage is that it can lead to justice. There is a secondary advantage to it, in that it greatly reduces the number of times a player will protest a hand with a claim of "If I had been properly informed, I would have [insert ridiculous bridge action here]". If there's a real problem, the TD can pick it up and take it into consideration. Asking early tends to reduce the post-mortem bridge lawyering. I don't like the procedure. I just haven't seen an alternative. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 14:53:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:16:57 +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 OAA08017 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:16:47 +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 11xLyL-000Aub-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:16:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 23:30:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Boston conditions References: <199912111800.NAA28566@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199912111800.NAA28566@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >A car?!! In Boston? Why would you bring a car? A train from the >distant suburbs is $4.85 round trip, including $2 for parking at the >station. Nearer suburbs are less. If you did not live in Boston or nearby, how would you know this? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+4 late] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 14:54:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:54:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (mailhop1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08187 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:53:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.121]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 22:51:47 -0500 Received: from [24.95.202.126] by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 22:45:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <009601bf4393$f2693d60$d5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com><001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080 @isi.com> <011801bf42bd$3fc83200$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 22:43:05 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The current practice of putting numerous CCs (for different partners) into a >flat plastic folder, with a private score on the inner face, should be >outlawed. The CC is designed for folding, so that one's scores on the inside >can have some security. A folded CC takes up less space on the table, and >table space seems to be an excuse for those not following CC regulations. The >argument that having only half the CC showing hides the other half doesn't >hold water, because one can easily turn it over when the auction (or play) >addresses something on the other side. If I had a bunch of CCs for partners I wasn't playing with at a given session, I'd leave them in the car. I keep my CC in a folded plastic folder, and put it on my left, next to LHO's bidding box. I keep my score on my right, under _my_ bidding box. Also folded so opps can't read it. My partner doesn't like doing this, she says it makes her feel crowded. So she puts both her CC and her score under her bidding box. In the end, it doesn't seem to matter. In the past year of playing in mostly two local clubs, and a couple of sectionals, I've only twice had an opp ask to see my card. The usual reaction to my trying to make it available to them is "What's this? Get it out of my way." One player went so far as to chase after the woman who'd just left our table, waving _my_ card and exclaiming "you forgot your card!" I showed one local TD the response I got from the ACBL, confirming that the CC regulations _are_ supposed to be enforced at club games. His response was "I knew that." But he doesn't enforce them. :-( 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/AwUBOFRtx72UW3au93vOEQLbiwCeKElC8FrJLM86TWACb6Chx0HLr68An06j KKQdCcRABDjXkx/KHksughNv =yC6O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 15:24:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:24:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (mailhop1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08251 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:23:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.146]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 23:21:45 -0500 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; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 23:21:28 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 23:16:07 -0500 To: Bruce Moore , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Stop card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I'd like to highlight a few points of the regulation that Richard >quoted. In the ACBL, proper procedure is: > > 1. Place Stop card on the table > 2. Place your bid on the table > 3. Replace Stop card in the bidding box > >That is, the hand following the skip bid is responsible for the pause. >The other point most often missed is that the hand following the skip >bid is expected to pause on any skip bid, even if the Stop card is not >used. > >Note that this differs from (in my understanding anyway) the regulation >used in Great Britain. In the EBU proper procedure is: > > 1. Place stop card on the table > 2. Place your bid on the table > 3. Wait 10 seconds > 4. Replace Stop card in the bidding box > >Unfortunately, many folks in the ACBL use the British regulations. I recently had occasion to ask rulings@acbl.org about this question. The reply: >From: Butch Campbell (Gary Blaiss) >To: ereppert@rochester.rr.com >Subject: use of the stop card -Reply >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >The stop card should be left out an >appropriate amount of time. Failure to do so >does not eliminate the requirement for the >person next to call waiting the appropriate >amount of time. So, while _I_ agree that the ACBL regulation is as you say, it appears even some at ACBL headquarters feel differently. Yes, the meat is that the onus is on the person next to call, yet here we are told the one making the skip bid should also be responsible. 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/AwUBOFR0zb2UW3au93vOEQJEogCdESfU6JsVHCZ5Mi85rSzjb2jcVXwAoOLB IXthNg1MeufU0hhbDcu3aVCd =DRn2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 15:47:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:17:18 +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 OAA08030 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:16:56 +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 11xLyP-0002IA-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:16:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 23:47:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <199912101426.JAA26680@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <199912101426.JAA26680@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: >> >> We have just banned a man for ten years for cheating. You are saying >> that a different from of cheating is acceptable? > >I don't see how you get to cheating. He's advocating a >principled attempt to make the ACBL have its reulations >conform to the Laws of bridge. > >If you feel that the ACBL is in fact already doing so - then >saying so - and why - would be helpful. > I was talking about a general policy. The trouble with people that believe the Laws are not being followed doing something about [apart from protesting, which is fine] is that it is merely their interpretation. Suppose someone on this list decides as a protest to refuse to look at his hand because he does not trust the Laws. He is breaking the Laws - but he says not. Complaining about things is fair enough. Taking advantage of other players as a form of protest is not. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+4 late] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 15:53:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:17:11 +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 OAA08024 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:16:54 +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 11xLyR-0002IC-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:16:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 00:01:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 References: <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <3.0.1.32.19991210003514.00766e90@pop.mindspring.com> <007201bf4365$f0148de0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007201bf4365$f0148de0$d5075e18@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: >Now the question is, should a player go meekly when summoned from the >table, or what? Of course, since the Laws require players to do what TDs tell them. When asked the question, however, I would remind players that they are likely to have several options, that they should consider all those options, taking as much time as they need, and if the Director tries to rush them, tell him politely that you are thinking about it. I should also ask the Director for a chair because I think better sitting down, and *of course* I shall have to go back to the table to get the actual thirteen cards because I cannot think properly without them. Perhaps the Director would like to carry the board so I can look at it, and I think we ought to have all the bidding cards so I can see them while I make my decision. Would the Director mind if I just fetched my drink so I could sip it while I make up my mind? Then I tell him the five possible actions that I have come up with. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+4 late] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 17:17:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:17:19 +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 OAA08026 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:16:55 +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 11xLyR-000Aub-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:16:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 00:13:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:57:39 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >>> Now the pieces easily fall into place. What would have happened had >>> West known that 2C was Drury and known that North had not alerted it? >> >>This isn't. >> >>In the abstract form of the game, EW know their opponent's >>system better than NS do, so there is no need to have >>alerts. >>The alert, or the absense of one, is Authorized but >>not-Entitled Information (AnEI). > >I am not quite sure what you mean here. > >There was no alert at the table. This is AI to EW. The only >"abstract" thing about the situation is that we are trying to >imagine what would be a "likely" (L12C2) outcome if EW knew NS's >system. A situation where N had alerted is irrelevant. > >If it is considered likely that W would choose to pass when N >does not alert 2C, then we should adjust based on that. > >So I agree completely with Adam. Interesting. We have discussed this before, with a different conclusion, and I do not remember you as disagreeing. When we make an adjustment, which is based on full information of opponent's methods, you are also allowing in that adjustment the knowledge that they did not know the methods? That does seem over-the-top, and we have an interpretation in the EBU that we don't. I think it is correct, as well. When the bidding goes p p 1h p 2c p p to East, when the hand is played, East has a certain amount of MI, provided by a failure to alert. It is my view, and the EBU's stated view, that when we adjust we do so as though the player was correctly informed. We do not adjust as though he was both correctly and wrongly informed, and he gets the benefit from both - and I do not think we should. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+4 late] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 17:25:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA09720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:25:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA09715 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:25:27 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (LHEA9504/950407.s1) id BAA24799 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 01:24:49 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <199912130624.BAA24799@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Boston conditions To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 01:24:49 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199912111800.NAA28566@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Dec 11, 99 01:00:31 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 Yes...a little shock for everyone as I :-) First, let me say that I was in Boston for 7 days total. I played 6 of those days. By and large, it was an average tournament as NABC's go, it had some major problems and some real positives. > Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:00:31 -0500 (EST) > From: Steve Willner > > > From: "Linda Trent" > > Well - first there were two sites, in two hotels that were a good > > 15 min. walk apart. > > The path between the two hotels was an indoor corridor, and it took me > only about two or three minutes. Admittedly I'm a fast walker, but 15 > minutes is way too pessimistic unless you get lost. The outdoor walk > was a short city block. > Granted, I'm a reasonably fast walker, but with the holiday crowds in the malls, I felt that it was about 5-8 minutes between the playing areas of the hotels (the key part). Yes, you could make it from the lobby of the Westin to the bar of the Marriott in 4-5 minutes, but is that where you are travelling? It took me about 5-8 minutes to get from playing area to playing area. Most of that was navigating through the shopping crowds and the crowds on the escalators, but still... > > When the National events had big fields, everyone was crammed > > into a too small space and on two floors of the Westin. > > The only day I played in the Westin was fine, but it was the Friday > after Thanksgiving. I wouldn't be surprised if other days were worse. > The Westin was one of the worst places I've played in an NABC and I've been to about 14 of them over the years. For those of us that are visually impaired, the lighting was horrific. In one case, I almost eliminated a very good Flight A player (Gene Prosnitz whom some on this list will know) from the first day of the Blue Ribbon pairs, because I "fixed" him due to not being able to see my cards correctly. I might have come to the same bid (and probably would have), but might not have and certainly it was a much easier bid with the information I had that wasn't there. :-) By the third day of play in the Westin, I had to hunt for a table with sufficient lighting for every session and request a stat for that table just to compete. This is rather unfortunate. There were *NO* sections in the room that had fewer than 4 tables where I was completely unable to see. I usually try to help out my director friends by taking a double- move entry, but was forced to ask for a double-stat entry due to the horrible playing conditions. The crowded conditions were there for the LM pairs and the Blue Ribbon pairs. My understanding is that these two events were well over prediction for the table count. The NA Swiss and the Reisinger were not as over-sold. I heard from some that they were leaving early due to the poor playing conditions in the Westin. Although not a large number of folks opted for this, enough (IMHO) did that the count was down to expected numbers for the second weekend. I find this lamentable. > > The smoking area was in three small rooms at the Westin on > > the third floor and all the smoke leaked out into the lobby-like > > area that was shared by the playing area. > > Massachusetts has very strict laws generally prohibiting indoor > smoking. (Our European readers may need a minute or two to recover > from their shock.) I'm a bit surprised there was an indoor smoking > area at all. Nevertheless, it's fair to consider facilities for > smokers at future tournaments. Maybe we will have to restrict NABC's > to North Carolina and Kentucky (major tobacco-producing states, much > friendlier to smokers). > Washington DC has very strict laws about indoor smoking and we still have arrangements made for our tournaments. There should be convenient smoking arrangements in separate ventillated areas for the smokers. I'm an avid-non-smoker myself (the smoke aggravates and complicates my already poor vision problems), but I feel that all arrangements for smokers should be made that they can have their smoke away from me. In DC, this happens. And at other NABC's I've seen it. But in Boston, I noted that the only smoking areas were not particularly convenient. There was a smoking area/room on the 3rd floor of each hotel and significant playing areas on the 4th floor. That meant that players on the 4th floors had to go down to the floor below to get to the smoking area. It was not feasible in some of the events when they only had about 4-5 minutes (it took awhile to go across the large rooms, across the large lobbies, down the escalator and across the large lobbies on the other floor...smoke and backtrack). Not very well thought-out. > > For appeals, we couldn't even get copies of the appeal form > > for the committee members because the copy machine was at the > > other hotel. > > This is just poor organization. At worst, an ACBL employee could have > run over to Staples (discount office supply store) and bought a copier > for $250 or so. The ACBL was disorganized in other ways too. I don't > think this has anything to do with Boston. > Yes, the ACBL was poorly organized. Unfortunately, I think that the Boston committee was only average organized and this combination lead to a mediocre nationals. What I don't understand is that the appeal form is in the computer. If needed, they could have just printed out copies on the scoring computers. Why this wasn't done more, I don't know. > And another ACBL problem. There need to be enough people to implement > the procedures. If there aren't enough TD's, use two TD's and a player > or one TD and two players. Somebody should have figured out the > implications before deciding to have TD's hear appeals. > This was partially complicated by the long distance between the two playing sites. Not only were the playing sites distant, but the rooms where the officiating staff were housed (the DIC, etc) were pretty far as well. The TD's were isolated into three pretty distant areas and it was hard for any one of the groups to drop in and support the others as usually happens in an NABC. > > Boston was very expensive. $28 a day to park your car at the > > hotel. > > A car?!! In Boston? Why would you bring a car? A train from the > distant suburbs is $4.85 round trip, including $2 for parking at the > station. Nearer suburbs are less. > > If you drove to Boston, you would have been better-advised to leave > your car somewhere outside the city where cheap parking is available, > then take a cab or train to the hotel. Also, driving in Boston is > something of an adventure, not recommended for those unfamiliar with > the local customs. (The colors on the stop lights have non-standard > meanings here, for example. Yellow means 'go'. Red means 'speed up'. > Green means you better stop for all the cars going through on the red.) > You certainly don't need or want a car for getting around downtown. > > That said, there is no doubt that Boston is a relatively expensive city. > There are less expensive hotels but not downtown. Boston is considered > a desirable destination for both business and tourism, and the result is > higher prices than less desirable cities. > I usually rent a car in NABC towns since I often like to dine somewhere far away from the tournament site...I like to get local food and be away from bridge players...I also like to sight-see. I didn't in this case, fortunately, because I have a very good friend and frequent partner who lives about 15 minutes from the playing site. If it wasn't for him, I would most likely have been taken for a ride by the Boston NABC's in several areas. For one thing, the last T from the playing area runs about 12:20. If you stayed late at the playing site to check scores or socialize a little, you'd miss the T. Then you would be forced to take a cab to whereever you left your car. Boston was a pleasant city to have an NABC in and the convenience of the two malls was appreciated. But, my only gripe about the city is that the committee could have made the commuting and travelling info a little more readily available to the players *BEFORE* the NABC's. Those handy little write-ups in the bulletin didn't mention that the city was on the pricy side and that players would be better served by not bringing or renting cars in the area. -Ted. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 17:36:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA09806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:36:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09801 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:36:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 22:36:12 -0800 Message-ID: <00fe01bf4534$5b7b81e0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 22:36:10 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > >I'd like to highlight a few points of the regulation that Richard > >quoted. In the ACBL, proper procedure is: > > > > 1. Place Stop card on the table > > 2. Place your bid on the table > > 3. Replace Stop card in the bidding box > > > >That is, the hand following the skip bid is responsible for the pause. > >The other point most often missed is that the hand following the skip > >bid is expected to pause on any skip bid, even if the Stop card is not > >used. > > > >Note that this differs from (in my understanding anyway) the regulation > >used in Great Britain. In the EBU proper procedure is: > > > > 1. Place stop card on the table > > 2. Place your bid on the table > > 3. Wait 10 seconds > > 4. Replace Stop card in the bidding box > > > >Unfortunately, many folks in the ACBL use the British regulations. > > I recently had occasion to ask rulings@acbl.org about this question. The reply: > > >From: Butch Campbell (answering for Gary Blaiss, evidently) > > > >The stop card should be left out an > >appropriate amount of time. Failure to do so > >does not eliminate the requirement for the > >person next to call waiting the appropriate > >amount of time. > > So, while _I_ agree that the ACBL regulation is as you say, it appears even > some at ACBL headquarters feel differently. Yes, the meat is that the onus > is on the person next to call, yet here we are told the one making the skip > bid should also be responsible. > This is wrong. Butch Campbell does not determine ACBL regulations, nor does Gary Blaiss. Regulations come from BoD and the Stop Card regulation is as stated above (page 2 of 3, ACBL Bidding Box Regulations). It was established by the BoD in November 1995, and has not been changed AFIK. Put the card on the table, pick it up, and LHO must pause for the required time. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 17:53:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:17:19 +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 OAA08029 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:16:56 +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 11xLyP-000AuY-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:16:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:48:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? References: <99Dec8.015124cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> 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, 9 Dec 1999 16:17:17 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: >> Once there is a fumble from the left, whatever that means, the spade >>finesse is a better percentage than the squeeze. > >Needing to think before playing even though you do not have the >key card in this situation is a bad error and may - through L73 - >give away the contract. I have no problem with that. > >But it seems to me that it is not quite so reasonable that a >purely mechanical fumble should cost the contract. If, as >Grattan seems to suggest, it is not proper to say "Sorry, that >was just a mechanical fumble" if you actually have the key card, >then any fumble will effectively guarantee declarer a safe line >in finesse or drop situations. If there is a fumble and an >apology, declarer cannot fail by playing for the key card to be >with the other opponent; if there is a fumble without apology, >declarer cannot fail by playing for the key card to be with the >fumbling player. I have no idea to what reference of Grattan's you refer, but of course you have a perfect right to say "Sorry, I was just fumbling". >The bottom line is that if you happen to fumble in such a >situation, declarer will, regardless of apology or not, do the >right thing, possibly with the TD's help. Not if I am the TD! The player makes it clear he merely fumbled and was not thinking: why should I rule against him? >> I thus consider he Danish NAC was wrong, since there was no case for a >>split score: they have decided that declarer's actions in taking a >>superior line were irrational, wild or gambling. In my view the Danish >>NAC has misunderstood the Laws in this area rather than that their >>judgement is flawed. >I do not think that they have found declarer's actions >irrational, wild or gambling; the written decision does not say >so. > >They have chosen to use the L12C2 recipe directly for one side, >but give a weighted average for the other side, thus creating a >difference in the result much like the one that can result from >the difference between "likely" and "at all probable". > >What is wrong with that? Nothing: why did I not think that is what they did? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+4 late] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 18:30:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:17:18 +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 OAA08025 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:16:54 +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 11xLyP-000AuZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:16:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 23:42:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080@isi.com> <001f01bf4443$db9c1480$5f5608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001f01bf4443$db9c1480$5f5608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: > >Grattan Endicott >Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk >Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk >Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! >================================================ >----- Original Message ----- >From: David J. Grabiner >To: >Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 8:14 PM >Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods > > >> At 8:58 AM +0000 12/11/99, Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: >> >> > David Grabiner wrote: >> >> >> At 7:10 PM -0800 12/9/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >> >> >So opening a 9 HCP weak notrump, announced to the opponents as a >> >> >routine 9-12, is cheating? I don't think so. >> >> >> >> Clarification: Cheating is only the *deliberate* violation of a >regulation, >> >> with knowledge that what you are doing is wrong. This includes playing >> >> illegal conventions, although the ACBL's right to define some of these >> >> conventions may not be authorized. >> >> >+=+ Sorry. I have not quite grasped what 'conventions' >> >this might refer to. Can you give me a clear example? >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> The ACBL says that it is illegal to play Stayman over a 9-12 NT opening, >> just as it says that it is illegal to play a Multi-2D in most events. I >> believe it has the right to forbid either, and it is a serious violation >to >> knowingly play an illegal convention. >> >> However, I do not believe that the ACBL has the right to say that it is >> illegal to play Stayman over a 1NT opening which shows 10-12 HCP if >partner >> uses his judgment to open occasional 9-counts, or to play Blackwood over a >> 5-11 HCP weak 2-bid if partner uses his judgment to open occasional >> 4-counts (or 12-counts). >> In fact, the ACBL forbids the first but not the second. >> >+=+ These are not regulations which govern the use of natural >1NT openers; they are regulations which govern the use of >conventions. They are made under the powers granted in Law >40D where it says: "The sponsoring organization may regulate >the use of bidding or play conventions." This power is entirely >unrestricted. The regulating authority has the power to forbid >use of a convention in whatever circumstances it may decide. Are you sure? I think we have had a debate in the past about natural justice. Are you sure that all the following regulations are legal: Stayman may not be played by black men. Blackwood may not be played by females. I think the regulation of conventions is pretty wide, but I am not convinced that an SO can really do anything it likes without challenge. Let us make it quite clear what regulation you are supporting: You may play an opening 1NT as 10-12 HCP, as a minimum. If you agree to play it as 10-12 HCP, and do play it as 10-12 HCP, but your judgement of a specific hand is different from the SO's, then you may not play Stayman thereafter. Are you really happy with that? Nothing about playing 9-12 HCP, when I am convinced limiting Stayman is a legitimate ploy, merely deviating for judgement reasons. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+4 late] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 18:53:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:16:54 +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 OAA08011 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:16:37 +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 11xLyG-0002IA-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:16:21 +0000 Message-ID: <1hid$BAnxAV4EwVS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 20:58:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Edwards wrote: >I had a ruling at a club game where I gave a split score. I'm >just wondering how bad my ruling was. Any comments appreciated. >Matchpoints >Board 15 S QJT S W N E >Dlr: S H JT73 P P 1H P >NS vul D AKJ5 2C(1) P P 2D > C 54 2H P P P > S 9652 S K8 > H --- H KQ64 (1) reverse drury, not alerted > D Q63 D T982 > C AKJ932 C T76 result: 2H+1, +140 NS > S A743 > H A9852 Before the opening lead, South > D 74 informed the opps that there > C Q8 had been a failure to alert 2C. > EW called the director. >The director determined that NS were indeed playing reverse drury (an >artificial 2C asking 3rd/4th seat opener to further describe his hand; >2S would be minimum, anything else natural good hand). I assume this means 2H not 2S. >Away from the table, East said that had he been properly informed, he >would not have balanced; West claimed that he would have doubled clubs. >The director told the players to play the hand out. After a result was >obtained, EW asked the director to review the hand. The director >decided: >result stands for EW, L12C2, the most favourable result >had the irregularity not occured; >NS result changed to 2C -3, -300, the most unfavourable result that >was at all probable. >NS appealed. The committee upheld the director's ruling; there was some >thought to adjusting EW to +300, but they decided to keep the result as >it was. Let me go through the steps. First, was there MI? Yes, the Director determined that 2C was Reverse Drury. Second, was the Director called as required before the correction? Well, no, but EW called him immediately after, so no harm done, I suppose. Third, was East given the chance to take back his final pass if it was based on MI? The narrative does not say, but the hand would suggest that he would not even if offered: let us assume it was offered but refused. As you all know, I do not approve of taking the players away to ask them what they would have done. However, once it has been done, I am using all the evidence available to me in my determination though I do not believe there is any reason why the NOs should be bound by their answers. As normally happens in these MI cases, UI needs to be considered as well. Note that a failure to alert can be MI - it says so in the Law book [sorry, Marv]. Let us consider the potential damage. West might have doubled 2C if correctly informed. If he does, I would have thought that a quite likely continuation would be p p 3h p p p. this would make 140 at least: no damage. If South can convince me that pass shows a minimum then 2H becomes credible: perhaps East might soldier on, and then South might bid 3H or not. The obvious alternative is that West might pass, we assume North passes, round to East. Perhaps he would protect: perhaps he is less likely to if he knows it is a form of Drury: after all, a heart fit really does not suggest his hearts are working. If he does not protect, then the result seems to be 2C, which seems likely to make five tricks, 2C-3, NS-300. If he does protect, then South has UI, and his actual choice of 2H might be suggested by it: but since partner passed his forcing 2C, any call but 2H or possibly 3H seems very strange, and those lead to NS+140. Or do they? How about West bidding 3C over 2H? Now that's reasonable: the only reason he did not was because it would have been conventional. Once South has decided not to bid more than 2H over 2D, he might pass 3C: or he might not, he has got a good hand, of course. Might anyone bid again over 3H? East might double it, West might pass or pull, and if he pulled 4C would be the final contract. South might double 4C. Time to tabulate. p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p p +140 p p 1h p 2c x p p 3h p p p +140 p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c p p p +50 p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c 3h p p p +140 p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c 3h p p x p p p +730 p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c 3h p p x p 4c p p p +100 p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c 3h p p x p 4c p p x p p p +300 p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c 3h p p x p 3s p 4c p p p +100 p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c 3h p p x p 3s p 4c x p p p +300 p p 1h p 2c p p p -300 p p 1h p 2c p p 2d 2h p p p +140 p p 1h p 2c p p 2d 2h 3c p p 3h p p p +140 p p 1h p 2c p p 2d 2h 3c p p 3h p p x p p p +730 p p 1h p 2c p p 2d 2h 3c p p 3h p p x p 4c p p p +100 p p 1h p 2c p p 2d 2h 3c p p 3h p p x p 4c p p x p p p +300 p p 1h p 2c p p 2d 2h 3c p p 3h p p x p 3s p 4c p p p +100 p p 1h p 2c p p 2d 2h 3c p p 3h p p x p 3s p 4c x p p p +300 Let us now eliminate any sequence where NS get 140 or better: if they occur then EW are not damaged. p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c p p p +50 p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c 3h p p x p 4c p p p +100 p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c 3h p p x p 3s p 4c p p p +100 p p 1h p 2c p p p -300 p p 1h p 2c p p 2d 2h 3c p p 3h p p x p 4c p p p +100 p p 1h p 2c p p 2d 2h 3c p p 3h p p x p 3s p 4c p p p +100 So, do we think any of these might have occurred? Let us reverse the normal order of happenings, and see whether any of these auctions are "at all probable"? How about the no double of 2C, no protection? I think it would happen from time to time with players: not perhaps too common, but it might just about be frequent enough to be considered "at all probable". The European standard has never been given, but I would think if you expected it to happen once or twice in twenty occurrences that would be "at all probable": the ACBL standard is one time in six, but I believe that to be only fair where the number of choices is severely limited. I believe this auction meets the test so I am giving the offenders [N/S] an adjusted score of NS-300. Is it a likely auction? Personally, I think the pass over 2C is not really likely. On the other hand, I think passing it out with the East hand is likely if East knows it is Drury. This, in fact, is what the players said when taken away from the table. On this occasion it seems we can accept what they said: since I don't believe that a pass over 2C is "likely" we can eliminate some of the auctions, and we are left with the following as potentially "likely": p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c p p p +50 p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c 3h p p x p 4c p p p +100 p p 1h p 2c x p p 2h p p 3c 3h p p x p 3s p 4c p p p +100 These auctions depend on 2H: is it a likely bid? I think it depends on what pass over 2C doubled means: if it is neutral, then I don't think 2H is likely, but if it shows a minimum then it is possible. However, I really do not believe that South would pass 3C out, so skip the first auction, and there we are! For E/W, the non-offenders, I would rule as follows: Unless N/S can convince me that pass over 2C doubled shows a minimum, I would rule it as NS+100 If N/S can convince me that pass over 2C doubled shows a minimum, I would rule it as NS+140, no damage. Close enough, Tony! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+3 late] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 19:04:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:04:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10048 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:04:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:56:36 -0800 Message-ID: <00ed01bf452e$d37474a0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil><199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca><009001bf4262$a8d4a680$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil><3.0.1.32.19991210003514.00766e90@pop.mindspring.com> <001c01bf451a$b6d45c20$b9d33ad0@hdavis> Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:55:39 -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: > > (speaking of a TD talking to a player away from the table about alternative > actions after an infraction) > > I think it's an awkward and artificial procedure. I also think it's > sometimes the only way to get information about what the player would have > done before the player has seen the hand. If done badly, it can indeed lead > to injustice. If done correctly, it may be the best way to get to the > correct ruling on a particular hand. I don't like the procedure. I just > haven't seen a better way to get certain information before it is tainted. > Its disadvantage is indeed that it can lead to injustice if done > incorrectly. Its advantage is that it can lead to justice. > > There is a secondary advantage to it, in that it greatly reduces the number > of times a player will protest a hand with a claim of "If I had been > properly informed, I would have [insert ridiculous bridge action here]". If > there's a real problem, the TD can pick it up and take it into > consideration. Asking early tends to reduce the post-mortem bridge > lawyering. > > I don't like the procedure. I just haven't seen an alternative. > Another objection to this procedure is that a player's opinion about what he would do cannot be taken at face value. I recall the time my wife Alice, at unfavorabe vulnerability overcalled 1S with 2D, next hand bid 3S, weak but unAlerted, and opener bid 4S. Alice led the king of diamonds, and dummy came down with a weak jump raise, Alertable. I called the TD, who took me away from the table and asked what I would have done if the 3S bid had been Alerted. Well, I had a doubleton diamond, as did dummy, and I could overrruff dummy. That's three tricks, and Alice was quite likely to have a trick outside. I could have said, "I would have doubled four spades." I actually replied, mischievously, "I need more time to think about that," but the TD said if I didn't give an immediate reply the matter was closed. So that was that, down one undoubled. No appeal, of course. Since a player's statement about what s/he would do in the absence of a possible infraction cannot be regarded as unbiased, there is no point in asking for it. The TD can almost always judge the matter without help from the NOS, and if s/he needs input from them, can pass any later "bridge lawyering" through hir experience filter. The "alternative" is to examine the deal when play is complete. More often that not it will be obvious that no damage was caused by the infraction, and away-from-the table questioning would have been a waste of the players' valuable time. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 19:05:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:05:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10064 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:05:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA00347; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:04:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA09951; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:04:52 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:04:51 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Boston conditions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > >A car?!! In Boston? Why would you bring a car? A train from the > >distant suburbs is $4.85 round trip, including $2 for parking at the > >station. Nearer suburbs are less. > > If you did not live in Boston or nearby, how would you know this? Page 1 of every tourist guide? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 19:06:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:17:40 +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 OAA08058 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:17:28 +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 11xLya-000AuZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:16:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:03:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Advice on Style for Contributions to rec.games.bridge MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Advice on Style for Contributions to rec.games.bridge ***************************************************** GENERAL The quality of a newsgroup will benefit if its community adheres to certain conventions in presentation and style. In this posting we provide some suggestions concerning contributions to rec.games.bridge. We claim no authority, but hope that contributors to RGB will be able to use these suggestions to their advantage. RGB is a *text* group. Like chess, RGB has some particular problems due to presenting hands and auctions. It is all too easy to make your article difficult to read on other members computers. However using the formatting tips given herein will avoid such problems and keep discussion flowing smoothly. There are a few things in particular that recur and should be avoided: 1) Do not use tabs in formatting as this in particular can ruin hand records with certain news readers. 2) Do not use proportional fonts for the same reason. (If your reader is presently set to proportional the example deals below will not align correctly). 3) State where you are posting from as the answers to most laws and bidding questions will depend on this. 4) Include the form of scoring and vulnerability if asking how to bid/play a hand. 5) Post using a text format. 6) When posting complete hands, check and recheck that they have exactly thirteen cards. These are discussed in more detail below. INFORMATION ON THE WEB This posting is not the rgb.FAQ, which is a separate document for the group containing 'frequently asked questions' (FAQ). Here is a quick reference to the bridge FAQ and other online information: IBA & RGB FAQ site : http://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge The Laws of Bridge : http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lnks.htm International Appeals : http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html ACBL home page : http://www.acbl.org Great Bridge Links : http://www.cbf.ca/GBL Bridge Newsgroups : http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/br_ngrps.htm Online Bridge : http://www.acbl.org/links/online.stm National organisations : http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_lnkn.htm NETIQUETTE The newsgroup news.announce.newusers regularly provides an introduction to the general rules and etiquette of net use. You will find there much commonsense advice: your postings reflect upon you, compose your text carefully, be brief, use a descriptive subject header, summarize previous posts to which you are responding, don't quote more material than is necessary, restrict your lines to 72 characters, sign your articles. You will find there also a discussion of the disease of mushrooming meta-discussions, suggestions about when to use private email rather than the net, suggestions about ignoring or dealing with postings that are deemed inappropriate, obnoxious or silly, advice about proper procedure in quoting previous posts and private email, and much else. It is important that you use a text format and a Fixed Font: details of how to do this with Outlook Express may be found at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/out_exp.htm. RGB is an international group, and it helps particularly to identify your country in postings, as many issues may be specific to it. It is polite to give your real name, and Town/City. A short sigfile such as: -- John B Doe - Cambridge Mass. USA ... will make replies to your query or point much more meaningful. General Netiquette asks you to restrict sigs to maximum 4 text lines. The special "-- " (3 character line) prefix [called a "sig separator"] allows good news programs to snip out the sig automatically when others reply. Unfortunately Outlook Express will not allow a sig separator. When responding to a post you should include enough of the question so that people know to what you are replying but delete enough [called "snipping"] so that people do not have to read large chunks they have already read earlier. Such editing can be quite an art. Look over other postings to see what is excessive editing, or clutter from too much repetition. You should nearly always edit out sigfiles if your reader does not do this. Try to snip in such a way as not to misattribute quotations, and especially when quoting someone in order to disagree with them, try not to distort their position through careless cutting. HAND DIAGRAMS It is helpful to your readers if you follow a minimal standard format when posting a hand or a deal. Count the cards! List the suits in the order S, H, D, C. In a diagram of four hands, place South at the bottom and rearrange the directions to make South declarer unless there is a special reason not to. Do not use the tab key to compose a diagram, as the diagram may become misaligned on other people's screens and is very likely to become misaligned if your text is quoted and indented. If only two hands are shown it may be better to place them side by side as West and East, and a single hand can be specified inline. It is also important that proportional fonts are not used. The exact distribution of small cards is often relevant for signalling and for communication between the hands, so please do not use xx's to represent small cards when discussing a play problem, and in a bidding problem use xx's only when they may truly be understood to represent the smallest cards in the suit. If you are posting a deal from actual play and you've forgotten all the small cards, then it may be best to make them up in some way so that this newsgroup has a precisely specified problem to consider. There are some defensive problems where one wants to "filter out" signalling issues, emphasizing inferences from bidding and declarer's play. In such cases, use of xx's may avoid peripheral concerns. Here are some minor points to improve readability. The symbol "T" for 10 is common and its use is recommended, particularly if you don't use spaces between cards. In the auction, use P or Pass and X or Dbl rather than PASS and DBL. A vertical lay-out for the suits in the North and South hands is difficult to read, please don't use that format. Cards are always specified suit first and bids level first (so D2 is a card and 2D is a bid or contract). Please capitalize the symbols AKQJT and use lower-case "x" for the unspecified small cards. When recapping the auction, make sure that East's bids are to the right of West's, else readers may associate the bids with the wrong hand. The recommended format is to list the bids in four columns in the order W-N-E-S. Note all alertable bids and explain the bid in context. Do not explain a bid by convention name if it is not one of the standard bids or if you play some variation that is not standard. You can avoid confusion by describing a bid rather than naming it. Some people have small screens, and it is helpful if they do not have to continually scroll up and down to read a hand. Thus a helpful diagram is quite small. Height tends to be more of a problem than width and the example below (in a 72 character width) will be legible almost anywhere. Note that if its columns don't line up your news program needs setting to fixed font! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Brd: 1 S KT83 Pairs | W N E S Dlr: N H A5 | 1C(1) P 1H(2) Vul: NS D AJ62 | P P P C J73 | S A97 S J652 | H T832 H K7 | D KT75 D 943 | (1) alerted, explained only as C 98 C KQ65 | "could be short" S Q4 | Opening H QJ964 Result: | (2) less than 10 points, lead: D5 D Q8 +140 NS | non-forcing, not alerted C AT42 | N/S are playing a system where you need a five card suit to open 1D, 1H or 1S. 1C is marked as forcing, 13-15 if balanced. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Play problems where only two hands are shown are easier to read if declarer is shown as West and dummy as East. For example: A97 J652 | West deals and opens 1NT. AT32 K7 | Everyone passes and North leads KT75 943 | H5. How do you play? J8 KQ65 | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION When you post a bidding problem, supply the method of scoring, the vulnerability and the position of the dealer. Do this even if you think the information is superfluous; it seldom is, and takes up very little space. When you post a play problem, again, as a matter of routine, mention the method of scoring and the vulnerability. It is normally right to provide the bidding too. Whenever possible, please give the level of the event. Also specify the type of defensive carding that is being used if relevant. When asking for a director's ruling on a particular deal, describe the level of the event and any relevant circumstances, specify all four hands, and describe the bidding and play completely. (In cases involving unauthorized information you can alternatively provide only the authorized information and ask what are the logical options.) It is also *extremely* important when asking for a Director's ruling to quote where the event is, what jurisdiction, and what level of event. You may often get a quite different decision depending on local rules or the standard of play involved. STYLE Many postings on RGB are in the "What went wrong?" category. A good original posting of that type describes a deal and bidding or play that is, in the poster's humble opinion, reasonable and without obvious error, but that has led to an unsatisfactory result. The poster asks whether some particular action is to blame or whether the result is just unfortunate. Deals in which the poster already recognizes that some error has been committed normally do not provide good material for discussion. Please do not pose problems of which one component is partnership misunderstanding, partnership mistrust, or flouting of partnership agreements. The net can't help with those problems except by impressing upon you that partnership understanding and partnership trust are preconditions for a good game of bridge. In consideration of your worldwide audience, please avoid bridge slang: "a hook", "to tap", or "red on white" may not be as clear to everyone as "a finesse", "force to ruff", or "vul v not". Note especially that the terms "red", "white" and "green" for vulnerabilities have different meanings for different people. RESPONSES It is not normally correct to solicit email replies because there are always some other members of the newsgroup who are interested in replies to any problem. It is satisfactory to ask for email replies as well as posts. If you are taking a poll or compiling a list, an alternative to consider is to request replies by email and then post a summary of the results. You should make clear that you are doing this since it is rarely done. If someone does send you email, it is polite to respond with at least a brief acknowledgement. Please remember to post the summary you promise! If people have gone to the trouble of replying, they are likely to be interested in the results. Before posting a reply to a problem, think it through. Read all the other postings in the same thread; maybe somebody else has already said what you were going to say. Reply only if you believe you are qualified and have an informed opinion, and compose your answer carefully - the time spent on doing so will save your readers much more time in the aggregate. Remember that it is only the careful reasoning that you supply that makes your answer of any interest to the RGB readers. If you are addressing a bidding problem, explain why your chosen bid is superior to the likely alternatives. If it is a play problem, try to provide percentages. If it is a director's problem, state the legal basis for your ruling. Please appreciate that a question that appears trivial to you was not trivial to the original poster and may not be trivial to many other readers. Be polite, succinct and to the point. Quote from the original posting no more than is needed to make your answer clear; attribute your quote properly, but never quote a signature. It is not normally a good idea to make successive postings referring to the same problem or issue, although a discussion may introduce a new topic that merits a second contribution. If you decide you've not made yourself clear in your first contribution, resolve to do better when you comment on another problem. If you decide that your original answer to a problem was wrong and meanwhile someone else has posted a better answer, don't feel that you now must post a correction to your previous answer. Perhaps you should not have replied in the first place, and anyway, the correction has already appeared. Forget about it and resolve to do better the next time. If you've posted an answer to a problem and you read a subsequent answer by someone else that you think is wrong, don't reiterate what you've said before. You've made your point and the readers can make up their own mind. If you see a posting that is plainly wrong or silly, wait a day or two before following up. If you can't stand to wait, send email to the author rather than a follow-up. Chances are other people have noticed too and an excessive number of follow-ups are already on the way. If you see a posting that is rude or inappropriate, an email message should be preferred to replying over the net; replying by follow-up on the net tends to generate flame wars instead of discussion. If you post a hand on this newsgroup you should be willing to accept that some players will strongly disagree with your bidding or play. Please understand that the nature of a public electronic network does not allow you the same degree of social control that you may have in your local bridge club; for that very practical reason you should try hard not to let a style of posting of which you disapprove interfere with your enjoyment of this newsgroup. OTHER INFORMATION The rec.games.bridge FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) was maintained by Markus Buchhorn (markus@octavia.anu.edu.au). The FAQ and related archive material, including a variety of Bridge software, is available by anonymous ftp on rgb.anu.edu.au in the directory /pub/Bridge/FAQ, or at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge. However, it has not been updated since late 1996 and should not be used for links. For links there are various places, including Great Bridge Links at http://www.cbf.ca/GBL and David Stevenson's Bridge Links at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm#brglnk. Most national organisations have their own sites which will include local links. A reasonably comprehensive list of national sites can be found at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_lnkn.htm. Various servers allow people to play and watch bridge over the Internet. Details may be found at http://www.acbl.org/links/online.stm. Please don't post hands from these servers until they are no longer current; the same hand may be played by many other RGB readers. Thanks to Ted Ying, Paul Jackson, Paul Barden, Mark Lehto, Mark Brader, Jim Loy, Hans van Staveren, Geoff Hopcraft, Franco Baseggio, Doug Newlands, David Grabiner, David desJardins, Chris Ryall, Charles Blair, Brian Clausing, Bharat Rao, Barry Rigal and Andy Bowles for their contributions to this style guide, and Jude Goodwin-Hanson for help in promulgating it. This guide will be available at the following addresses. It will also be posted to RGB three times a year, in mid-January, mid-July and mid- September. http://www.cbf.ca/GBL/gblRSC/rgb_stg.htm http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/rgb_stg.htm David Stevenson [for comments] Steve Willner Bas Braams Last-modified: 1999/11/23 -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Tel: +44 151 677 7412 Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 19:38:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:38:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (mailhop1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10146 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:38:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.146]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:36:40 -0500 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, 13 Dec 1999 03:36:22 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00fe01bf4534$5b7b81e0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> References: Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:31:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Stop card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marv French wrote: >This is wrong. Butch Campbell does not determine ACBL regulations, nor does >Gary Blaiss. Regulations come from BoD and the Stop Card regulation is >as stated above (page 2 of 3, ACBL Bidding Box Regulations). It was >established by the BoD in November 1995, and has not been changed >AFIK. > >Put the card on the table, pick it up, and LHO must pause for the >required time. Oh, I agree with you, Marv. But educating TDs, club TDs in particular is difficult enough. When the folks at the ACBL who ought to _know_ the answer get it wrong, it's well-nigh impossible. 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/AwUBOFSwir2UW3au93vOEQJMqQCdEX0IVVLBJ9+oHOfnxRaBSjVkbs8AmwUc P0w3qk0aLsQDDAqSej/v5eBB =/3Ax -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 19:53:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:13:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10089 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:12:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA01535; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:12:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA09963; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:12:17 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:12:16 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Ted Ying cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Boston conditions In-Reply-To: <199912130624.BAA24799@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The crowded conditions were there for the LM pairs and the Blue Ribbon > pairs. My understanding is that these two events were well over > prediction for the table count. The NA Swiss and the Reisinger were > not as over-sold. > I heard from some that they were leaving early due to the poor > playing conditions in the Westin. Although not a large number of > folks opted for this, enough (IMHO) did that the count was down to > expected numbers for the second weekend. I find this lamentable. In every Fall NABC that I've played in so-far, the table count dropped off during the last weekend. If in Boston the table count was as expected, then either the planners have done a better job OR there were far more entries than expected. Both the Reisinger and NA-Swiss had larger fields than last year, with about 25% more teams in the Reisinger w.r.t. Orlando. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 13 23:53:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:32:31 +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 XAA10837 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:32:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-22-229.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.22.229]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19455 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:32:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38537C6D.2EC1A8B9@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:43:57 +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: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com><001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080 @isi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "David J. Grabiner" wrote: > > > The ACBL says that it is illegal to play Stayman over a 9-12 NT opening, > just as it says that it is illegal to play a Multi-2D in most events. I > believe it has the right to forbid either, and it is a serious violation to > knowingly play an illegal convention. > > However, I do not believe that the ACBL has the right to say that it is > illegal to play Stayman over a 1NT opening which shows 10-12 HCP if partner > uses his judgment to open occasional 9-counts, or to play Blackwood over a > 5-11 HCP weak 2-bid if partner uses his judgment to open occasional > 4-counts (or 12-counts). > In fact, the ACBL forbids the first but not the second. Let's get this point straight guys. "Partner uses judgment to open occasional 9-counts". What does this mean? Firstly, it means that this opening is systemic. Secondly, it means that the opening should be described to include this type of hand. Call it 9+, or 19.5 HxP, or what you will, but don't call it 10HCP. That is misinformation. Thirdly, if the SO says you cannot play some system below 10HCP, then this is a system below 10HCP, and therefore forbidden. Easy. You are allowed to open on 9HCP, but you will be hard pressed by the director who will determine whether you have simply miscounted, or done something silly, or whether you have used judgment in counting the particular 9 as 10. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 00:36:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:36:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11017 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:36:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 08:35:16 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991213083047.0087bdc0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 08:30:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Boston conditions In-Reply-To: References: <199912130624.BAA24799@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:12 AM 12/13/99 +0100, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >Both the Reisinger and NA-Swiss had larger fields than last year, with >about 25% more teams in the Reisinger w.r.t. Orlando. Much more than that, I think. The Reisinger drew 46 teams in Orlando and 68 in Boston. The Open BAM (first Sunday-Monday) drew 70 something in Orlando and 130 something in Boston. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 01:29:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:29:01 +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 BAA11179 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:28:48 +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 11xWSk-000PYv-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:28:31 +0000 Message-ID: <6Pe+0aBVoOV4EwXp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:44:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Query from OKBridge Discuss MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx the auction goes: rho you lho partner pass pass pass 1h 2c 3d* pass 3h** pass ? 3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support 3h**=very slow would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. if someone could post this message to the bridge laws discussion group and report back, i'd appreciate it. pax, henrysun sinisterminister there is no god by allah and mohammed is his prophet -- Relayed from the OKbridge discussion list (discuss@okbridge.com) OKbridge -- Bridge on the Internet -- http://www.okbridge.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 01:28:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:28:50 +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 BAA11173 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:28:41 +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 11xWSl-0005uV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:28:32 +0000 Message-ID: <3fG9wUB0mOV4EwXn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:42:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Boston conditions References: <199912111800.NAA28566@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199912130624.BAA24799@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <199912130624.BAA24799@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > >Yes...a little shock for everyone as I > :-) Oh, hi! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+4 late] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 01:50:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:50:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA11291 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:50:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.unimuenster.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:49:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bf4579$610c0400$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> From: Richard Bley To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws References: <6Pe+0aBVoOV4EwXp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:50:20 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.3825.400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 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 BAA11292 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 1:44 PM Subject: Query from OKBridge Discuss : in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: : : ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx : : the auction goes: : : rho you lho partner : pass pass pass 1h : 2c 3d* pass 3h** : pass ? : : 3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support : 3h**=very slow : : would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the : player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained : that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the : impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. : Well from a bridge-point of view I can understand the logic of the player. I might bid by myself in this fashion. How many players of comparable strengh would bid 4h after bidding only an INV hand? I think by far the most. So I would allow it. But itŽs borderline. Cheers Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 02:32:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 02:32:15 +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 CAA11553 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 02:32:06 +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 KAA07175; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:31:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA047299109; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:31:49 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA024249108; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:31:48 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:31:44 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Teaching Laws (Was: Stop card) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, GillP@bigpond.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 CAA11554 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: I found this extremely refreshing to read. I have heard of some bridge teachers in New Zealand, who include a special lesson "Bridge is a Special Game" in their Beginners' Lessons. One such ex-beginner, who has progressed rapidly, told me that she and her fellow beginners eagerly awaited this lesson, and they all absolutely loved the advice on ethics and Laws, presented with humour and personality. She is surprised that so many teachers do not do the same. I wonder how we can change the world so that instead of pockets of excellence, such teaching becomes the norm? [Laval Dubreuil] We also have something like this in our school of bridge. After the 2 series of 8 lessons (initiation and basic card play), beginners are invited to registrate to "Preparation to duplicata". The first half hour is devoted to teach them what they should know before playing in clubs (movements, scoring, filling convention card, ethics, and some Laws and regulations including alerts and bidding boxes). We sell student's notes to help learning on these topics, with flow charts illustrating some laws (out of turn leads and calls, insufficient bid, revoke). The next two hours they play bridge with bidding boxes and movements like in a real game. We use lesson hands from previous courses and free dealt ones. Teacher is there to help them playing, but also to create good playing habbits. We also offer this material to more advanced students, using lesson hands they played in the course they just finished (defence, conventions, etc..). Our best students tell us this course is essential. When they play in clubs or tournaments, they are better prepare than other novices and can concentrate their efforts on bridge. They also are aware of their rights and avoid beeing intimidated by some players (they just call TD as we teach to do). This is why my previous message told zonal organisations should support activities on Law and ethics to improve our game (sectional and regional tournaments should be a good place for that). Laval Du Breuil From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 02:50:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 02:50:42 +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 CAA11607 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 02:50:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:50:17 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA30816 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:51:45 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:41:31 +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 David Stevenson wrote: >in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: > >ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx > >the auction goes: > >rho you lho partner >pass pass pass 1h >2c 3d* pass 3h** >pass ? > >3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support >3h**=very slow > >would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the >player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained >that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the >impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. > >if someone could post this message to the bridge laws discussion >group and report back, i'd appreciate it. I don't believe that player. This hand is very suitable for a (semi)preemptive raise in hearts: lots of hearts, not many high card points but not many losers either. I would have bid 4H in the first place. Now that he chose to bid a limit, and partner signs off, pass is a very reasonable alternative. I would adjust to 3H (unless 4H went down :-) ) Martin Sinot Nijmegen, Netherlands martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 02:55:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 02:55:50 +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 CAA11635 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 02:55:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA31389 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:55:12 +0100 Message-ID: <385516AD.24045C55@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:54:21 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss References: <6Pe+0aBVoOV4EwXp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: > > ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx > > the auction goes: > > rho you lho partner > pass pass pass 1h > 2c 3d* pass 3h** > pass ? > > 3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support > 3h**=very slow > > would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the > player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained > that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the > impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. > We don't know the class of the 3D bidder. IM(H)O passing 3H is a LA. Consider this: xx AKxxx QJx Kxx or Qxxx KJxxx x AQx or Qxx KJxxx Axxx Kx I think it's still close. But I think bidding 4H is not a 75% action when non-vulnerable (what the heck is white? love all?). I have no idea whether my judgement is similar to the 3D bidder's. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Dec 14 03:03:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:03:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11688 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:02:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:01:39 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991213105710.00851850@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:57:10 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <38537C6D.2EC1A8B9@village.uunet.be> References: <003d01bf41b5$74524d20$d5075e18@san.rr.com> <001b01bf41d5$3b8d03c0$1ec1e080 @isi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:43 AM 12/12/99 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Let's get this point straight guys. > >"Partner uses judgment to open occasional 9-counts". Let's get it straight then, not "9-counts" but "hands which contain 9 high card point." Referring to a hand as a "9-count" does not restrict us to rigid high card points -- perhaps you added a point for your doubleton or subtracted a point for an aceless hand or added a point for two tens in combination with other honors. >What does this mean? Well, there is a distinction, in my view. The HCP method of evaluating hands is a simple, but crude, method of estimating the value of a hand. Saying one hand contains 10 HCP and another contains 9 HCP is not the same kind of comparison as saying one piece of granite weighs 10 kilos and another piece of granite weighs 9 kilos. We know the 10 kilo piece of granite is heavier than the 9 kilo piece of granite. We do not know that the 10 HCP hand is stronger than the 9 HCP hand. It seems to me that it should be relative strength that regulations concern themselves with. When the ACBL places restrictions on the use of conventions after a NT opening bid which may conatin fewer than 10 HCP, they are really attempting (or should be attempting) to restrict the use of conventions after a NT opening which falls below a certain strength threshold. The ACBL uses a simple, but crude, evaluation technique to define this strength threshold. What results from this regulation is a situation where someone may open 1NT holding Qxx QJx QJx Qxxx and play whatever conventions they want, but they may not agree to open 1NT holding KT9x QT9 ATx T9x and enjoy the same use of conventions. If you list all the possible hands from weakest to strongest and step through them, you will come across some 10 HCP hands, then some 9 HCP hands, then some 10 HCP hands, etc. There is something about the inaccuracy of ACBL's threshold measurement method that does not sit well with me. I am not disputing the ACBL's right to regulate conventions after a 1NT opening bid which may contain fewer than 10 HCP. Nor would I dispute their right to regulate the use of conventions after a 1NT opening bid which may contain the jack of spades. Zonal authorities have plenary power when it comes to regulating conventions. In the case of this ACBL regulation, it would seem better to restrict the use of conventions after a 1NT opening bid which may by partnership agreement be made on a hand of less than average strength. Better from a theoretical standpoint if not from an enforcement standpoint. I do dispute the ACBL's regulation which forbids opening one-bids which by partnership agreement may be made with hands which contain fewer than 8 HCP. The legality of this regulation is supposed to be based on L40D: "Zonal organizations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength." The ACBL interprets a king or more below average strength to mean fewer than 8 HCP. I contend that AQJTxxx x xxx xx is less than a king below average strength and that the Laws do not authorize a Zonal authority to forbid me from opening a natural 1S when I hold this hand. No one has yet presented me with a convincing argument in favor of the legality of this ACBL regulation. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 03:28:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:28:04 +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 DAA11794 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:27:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb4s08a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.168.181] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11xC3S-0003rV-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 16:41:02 +0000 Message-ID: <000601bf4586$b6130fe0$b5a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:47:15 -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: 13 December 1999 07:45 Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods >Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: >> >>Grattan Endicott >>Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk >>Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk >>Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! >>================================================ >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: David J. Grabiner >>To: >>Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 8:14 PM >>Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods >> >> >>> At 8:58 AM +0000 12/11/99, Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: >>> >>> > David Grabiner wrote: >>> >>+=+ These are not regulations which govern the use of natural >>1NT openers; they are regulations which govern the use of >>conventions. They are made under the powers granted in Law >>40D where it says: "The sponsoring organization may regulate >>the use of bidding or play conventions." This power is entirely >>unrestricted. The regulating authority has the power to forbid >>use of a convention in whatever circumstances it may decide. > > Are you sure? I think we have had a debate in the past about natural >justice. Are you sure that all the following regulations are legal: > >Stayman may not be played by black men. >Blackwood may not be played by females. > > I think the regulation of conventions is pretty wide, but I am not >convinced that an SO can really do anything it likes without challenge. > > Let us make it quite clear what regulation you are supporting: > > You may play an opening 1NT as 10-12 HCP, as a minimum. If you agree >to play it as 10-12 HCP, and do play it as 10-12 HCP, but your judgement >of a specific hand is different from the SO's, then you may not play >Stayman thereafter. > > Are you really happy with that? Nothing about playing 9-12 HCP, when >I am convinced limiting Stayman is a legitimate ploy, merely deviating >for judgement reasons. > +=+ I was dealing with bridge law. Your racial and sexist examples are not matters for bridge law but for national and international law. +=+ +=+ As to bridge law, I refer to a letter from Kaplan that I have on file, if I dig for it. As closely as I recall it says: "(In regulating conventions) if a sponsoring organisation wishes to require that any player who has an agreement to use the 'wizard' convention must wear a conical yellow hat it is empowered to do so. We may think the regulation ridiculous but it is not unlawful under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The power to regulate conventions has no restrictions." Until Law 40D is altered it gives unlimited powers to regulating authorities. You may not like it, but this is how it is. Frequent use of 'judgement' converts to habit and partnership understanding and is then subject to regulation, as for example players who open a 12-14 NT on 11 often enough for it to require disclosure. [You may know whether the EBU has a view on the operation of O.B.12.5.2 where a partnership is discovered to make a regular habit of opening 9 counts for judgmental reasons? And what is the attitude where a player likes to open a natural 1NT with a singleton?] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 03:39:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:39:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11829 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:39:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 08:39:39 -0800 Message-ID: <014901bf4588$a91ecca0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <6Pe+0aBVoOV4EwXp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 08:36:09 -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 henrysun wrote: > in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: > > ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx > > the auction goes: > > rho you lho partner > pass pass pass 1h > 2c 3d* pass 3h** > pass ? > > 3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support > 3h**=very slow > > would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? Yes. Responder has about the right values for the response. > the > player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained > that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the > impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. Doesn't matter what the intention was. The break in tempo suggests that raising would be better than passing, passing is an LA, adjust the score if declarer makes the game. An alternative doesn't have to be logical for the particular player involved in order for it to be considered logical when applying L16A. Breaks in tempo have a way of affecting logical thought processes. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 03:47:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:47:37 +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 DAA11852 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:47:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from p51s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.82] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11xCMU-0004lA-00; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:00:42 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf4589$75737440$b5a893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:44:11 -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 Date: 13 December 1999 16:26 Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods >No one has.yet presented me with a convincing argument >in favor of the legality of this ACBL regulation. > +=+ But then, to be fair, Tim, you are not prepared to be convinced, are you? The ACBL is using a standard form of measurement of values, and is entitled to select the measure it will use in its regs. By that standard the hand is a King or more below average strength and accordingly the regulation is entirely within the law. The Laws leave it to the discretion of regulating authorities to determine the scale of measure- ment according to which they will settle regulatory matters and do not impose any particular method upon them.~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 03:53:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:21:02 +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 DAA11761 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:20:50 +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 LAA11604 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:20:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA29822 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:20:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:20:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912131620.LAA29822@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David J. Grabiner" > "6.ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after > opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For this classification, by > partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and > the suit must contain at least five cards.)" > I don't know what the ACBL's intention was on the GCC; item 8 does not > defer explicitly to any other item on the list, and item 9, dealing with > wide-range NT, does says explicitly "no conventional responses or rebids". I had some correspondence with Gary Blaiss on this question perhaps a year or so ago. His opinion then -- if I understood it correctly -- was that the intention was to ban all conventional methods after non- conforming weak two-bids, but he wasn't sure of that, and he agreed that the wording seemed to allow conventions permitted by anything other than item 6. Gary was going to take the matter to the C&C committee, but I haven't heard anything further. My suggestion was to move the various prohibitions into the "Disallowed" section, where it could be made clear exactly what was prohibited. (And where they ought to be easier to find.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 03:54:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:54:25 +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 DAA11876 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:54:13 +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 LAA13401 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:54:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA29864 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:54:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:54:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912131654.LAA29864@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Boston conditions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Linda Trent" > My husband and I rent a car at every NABC to see some sights. This was > the first time we didn't because the price to park was higher than > the car rental. Thanks, Linda. No need to comment on the rest, but let me offer some advice for anyone who comes to Boston. Most of the tourist areas downtown are convenient to walk to, and you can get to the rest via public transportation (or taxi if that's your preference). There are also several companies that offer guided tours (by bus or amphibious vehicle!), if you like that sort of thing. If you want to see the surrounding area, then I suggest you rent a car for a day and turn it in when you are done. Many of the rental companies have offices downtown, or you can take a hotel shuttle to the airport. Actually, the best deal may be to take a taxi (or subway) to a rental office in a residential neighborhood, because many of the companies rent cars to "locals" at much lower prices than their standard rates. The trick is to make the reservation directly with the local office and not through the national 800 number. As Linda says, parking in downtown Boston is prohibitive. It has to do with air quality restrictions and the ongoing "Big Dig," among other reasons. Parking in outlying suburbs is cheaper or free, and there are some less expensive lots near the airport. I hadn't realized that the hotel was only $105. That's astoundingly low for Boston. Somebody at the ACBL should get credit for negotiating that. You can find cheaper rooms in the suburbs, but for downtown that's super. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 04:50:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 04:50:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA12150 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 04:50:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:48:51 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991213124423.0082e4f0@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:44:23 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <000d01bf4589$75737440$b5a893c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:44 PM 12/13/99 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott================================ >When the mice rule, cats beware! >:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Goodwin >To: Bridge Laws >Date: 13 December 1999 16:26 >Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods >>No one has.yet presented me with a convincing argument >>in favor of the legality of this ACBL regulation. >> >+=+ But then, to be fair, Tim, you are not > prepared to be convinced, are you? I do feel quite strongly that I am right about this. But, I am not so close minded about it that I preclude the possibility that someone could convince me otherwise. You are right that the discussion is at something of a standstill, so I will attept to make this my last post on the subject. > The ACBL is using a standard form >of measurement of values, and is entitled >to select the measure it will use in its regs. As long as that measure does not result in the regulation being in violation of the Laws. The ACBL can find an evalution measure which counts AQJTxxx x xxx xx as 7 HCP which is 3 HCP (equivalent of a king) below the average hand (10 HCP), and this measure is certainly standard and widespread. But, you will have a hard time convincing me that AQJTxxx x xxx xx is a king weaker than A92 K83 Q74 JT65. A regulation which precludes me from opening with a natural 1S when holding AQJTxxx x xxx xx is (in my opinion) in violation of the Laws which empower Zonal authorities to regulate only those (non-conventional) opening bids which are a king or more below the strength of an average hand. What is all seems to come down to is the reliance on an evaluation technique (HCP) which is not adequate to determine whether a hand is a king or more below average strength. The HCP evaluation technique might be adequate to determine whether a hand is a king or more below average high card strength. Even then, it has long been known that honors in combination are stronger than the same honors not in combination. HCP was a simplification of Honor Tricks, but both of these are merely arbitrary methods designed to help players estimate the value of a hand. Anyway, it appears that it is going to be hard for either of us to convince the other that he is wrong. And, I don't mean to carry on this argument simply for the sake of argument. I will restate my position and leave it at that for the time being. AQJTxxx x xxx xx is less than a king below average strength. As such, a Zonal authority may not create a regulation which is in accordance with the Laws and which prohibits me from opening with a natural one spade when I hold that hand. >By that standard the hand is a King or more >below average strength and accordingly the >regulation is entirely within the law. The >Laws leave it to the discretion of regulating >authorities to determine the scale of measure- >ment according to which they will settle >regulatory matters and do not impose any >particular method upon them.~ Grattan ~ +=+ Nor do the Laws grant the regulating authority the right to determine the scale of measurement. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 04:53:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 04:03:00 +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 EAA11926 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 04:02:52 +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 MAA13755 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:02:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA29894 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:02:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:02:42 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912131702.MAA29894@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Boston conditions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >A car?!! In Boston? Why would you bring a car? A train from the > >distant suburbs is $4.85 round trip, including $2 for parking at the > >station. Nearer suburbs are less. > > If you did not live in Boston or nearby, how would you know this? I _hope_ all the Boston tourist literature makes clear how undesirable a car is. (I confess I have't checked.) The Boston bus, subway, and commuter train schedules, routes, and fares are all on the web (www.mbta.com). I'm pretty sure this link was on the web site for the tournament. The web site was a bit disorganized, so it may have been hard to find or perhaps even missing. In general, if you plan to bring a car to a downtown hotel in any US city, it's a good idea to find out how expensive parking will be. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 05:54:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA12376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:54:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from avalon.netcom.net.uk (root@avalon.netcom.net.uk [194.42.225.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA12371 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:54:44 +1100 (EST) From: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Received: from dialup-05-18.netcomuk.co.uk (dialup-05-18.netcomuk.co.uk [194.42.229.82]) by avalon.netcom.net.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA10080 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:54:32 GMT To: BLML Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:54:31 +0000 Reply-To: pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk Message-ID: References: <6Pe+0aBVoOV4EwXp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <385516AD.24045C55@omicron.comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <385516AD.24045C55@omicron.comarch.pl> 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 FAA12372 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:54:21 +0100, Konrad wrote: > >> would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the >> player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained >> that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the >> impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. >> > > We don't know the class of the 3D bidder. Both bidders were apparently international class with several national (US) wins. -- Pam Sussex, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 07:39:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:39:13 +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 HAA12780 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:39:01 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01357 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:38:50 +0100 Received: from ip173.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.173), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda01354; Mon Dec 13 21:38:48 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:38:48 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <99Dec8.015124cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> In-Reply-To: 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 HAA12782 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:48:31 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>But it seems to me that it is not quite so reasonable that a >>purely mechanical fumble should cost the contract. If, as >>Grattan seems to suggest, it is not proper to say "Sorry, that >>was just a mechanical fumble" if you actually have the key card, >>then any fumble will effectively guarantee declarer a safe line >>in finesse or drop situations. If there is a fumble and an >>apology, declarer cannot fail by playing for the key card to be >>with the other opponent; if there is a fumble without apology, >>declarer cannot fail by playing for the key card to be with the >>fumbling player. > > I have no idea to what reference of Grattan's you refer, but of course >you have a perfect right to say "Sorry, I was just fumbling". Grattan quoted page 57 of the EBL Commentary as follows: On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:49:54 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ You may care to consider the implications of the >statements on page 57 of the 1992 EBL Commentary >on the Laws. The position is not the same but the same >principle is present. > A.8.6 > 7.5.2. K.9.4.3. > Q.J.10 >"In No Trumps declarer leads the Spade J; West hesitates, >apologizes and plays 2. East realizes West cannot have >Spade Q since no apology would be due in that event ...." >It goes on to say that the info East has is UI. ~ G ~ +=+ and I then found, on the same page, "The player should also recognize that to hesitate and then apologize when he does hold a key card may also prove misleading to the opponent." I do not find it obvious from this that the intention was to disallow apologizing with the key card even in the case of a mechanical fumble. I am very glad to hear that you too find nothing wrong with such an apology - if we can all agree on that (and if we can teach it to the players), I don't think there is any great problem with L73. Back to David, quoting me, quoting David: >>> I thus consider he Danish NAC was wrong, since there was no case for a >>>split score: they have decided that declarer's actions in taking a >>>superior line were irrational, wild or gambling. In my view the Danish >>>NAC has misunderstood the Laws in this area rather than that their >>>judgement is flawed. > >>I do not think that they have found declarer's actions >>irrational, wild or gambling; the written decision does not say >>so. >> >>They have chosen to use the L12C2 recipe directly for one side, >>but give a weighted average for the other side, thus creating a >>difference in the result much like the one that can result from >>the difference between "likely" and "at all probable". >> >>What is wrong with that? > > Nothing: why did I not think that is what they did? I don't know what they did. But if they did what you suppose(d) they did, then (a) They did not say so in the official ruling, and (b) I agree with you that it is quite wrong. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 07:39:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:39:13 +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 HAA12779 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:39:01 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01358 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:38:50 +0100 Received: from ip173.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.173), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb01354; Mon Dec 13 21:38:49 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:38:49 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: 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 HAA12781 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 00:13:10 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >>So I agree completely with Adam. > > Interesting. We have discussed this before, with a different >conclusion, and I do not remember you as disagreeing. I don't remember disagreeing, either. I think the examples we have discussed earlier have been slightly different. > When we make an adjustment, which is based on full information of >opponent's methods, you are also allowing in that adjustment the >knowledge that they did not know the methods? Not directly "the knowledge that they did not know the methods", but the knowledge that N actually did not alert 2C. This non-alert has already happened before W needs to choose his bid, and would have happened also in the case where W happens to know the NS system beforehand. If they were playing with screens, so that W would not know whether there was an alert or not from N, I would agree with you. If they were playing without screens and without an alert procedure, so that W would have to ask N in order to get the wrong answer "natural", then I would also agree with you: there would be no question from W if he knew the system. But it does seem to me that a non-alert which has already happened and been noticed by W before it becomes his turn to make the bid in question should be available AI also in the adjustment case. > That does seem over-the-top, and we have an interpretation in the EBU >that we don't. I think it is correct, as well. > > When the bidding goes p p 1h p 2c p p to East, when the hand is >played, East has a certain amount of MI, provided by a failure to alert. >It is my view, and the EBU's stated view, that when we adjust we do so >as though the player was correctly informed. We do not adjust as though >he was both correctly and wrongly informed, and he gets the benefit from >both - and I do not think we should. When we are adjusting, MI is no problem in itself, since we are adjusting based on full knowledge. But a missing alert seems to me to then be equivalent to a mannerism: if N had looked distinctly happy or unhappy with the situation before passing, would you not allow that hesitation to be used (assuming it could be used, of course - the example is bad) by E even when adjusting? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 08:11:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:11:37 +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 IAA12927 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:11:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.221] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11xckY-000Kmg-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:11:19 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bf45ae$a443dc40$dd5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:58:26 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! ================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce J. Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sunday, December 12, 1999 5:58 AM Subject: Re: Stop card --------------------------\x/------------------------ > > Unfortunately, many folks in the ACBL use the British regulations. My > first impression was that the British way was inferior; DWS has since > convinced me that the EBU regulation is at least as good (and perhaps > better). However, either way works better than half the players using > the EBU method and the other half using the ACBL method. > ------------- \x/ --------------------------------- > +=+ If I may introduce a thought from the angle of an appeals committee: the British procedure has the advantage that the side skip-bidding sets the minimum pause for LHO and therefore has no complaint about premature action if LHO waits until the Stop Card is removed. Some players are not very good at estimating ten seconds, as we learn from asking the question 'How long was the hesitation?'. ~Grattan~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 08:20:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:20:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from tst.dk (www.telestyrelsen.dk [147.29.107.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12966 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:20:50 +1100 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <115201>; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:21:17 +0100 Message-Id: <99Dec13.222117cet.115201@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:17:07 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Re: Innocent or double shot? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id IAA12967 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> David Stevenson 09-12-99 17:17 >>> wrote original posts snipped >Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen wrote: (reason for asking about possible double shot) >>The finesse should be a 62% line as South >>is known to have 8 of the 13 missing major >>cards. The squeeze seems to be slightly >>antipercentage. Now, do we really want >>East to be able to choose the percentage >>line, and just because of the fumble be >>able to choose the anti-percentage line >>too, as long as he is careful to choose >>the "right" line at the table, reserving >>the alternative for the replay in committee? > Isn't this horrible? We are >assuming that East thinks this way - >why? >Is he a Bridge Lawyer? Why should >he not be an honest bridge player >who >just follows the rules of the game? No it isn't - no we aren't - no he isn't - no reason why not! >>Or do we want him to make his choice, >>basing this choice on the fumble if he so >>wishes, but making him stick to that >>choice instead of giving him two opportunities to win - by some called a >>double shot? > No, I would prefer that we play >Bridge according to the Laws, not >basing it on an assumption that >perfectly ordinary bridge players >are >rogues. I fail to see any such assumption, and I fail to see exactly what is not according to the Laws. >>If East is allowed both opportunities, >>why do we bother the players with the >>play of the rest of the hand? > Perhaps because we are here to >play bridge? Great idea! Then why don't we let their choices determine the result? > If you don't like the Laws of >bridge, change them. Otherwise you >should apply them. I still havn't seen exactly what is wrong about the double shot questions. And why do you get the idea that I don't like the Laws? >>I think the above is valid questions. >>I also think it is possible to argue >>for no adjustment for East with reference >>to L73D1 ("at his own risk") and the Lille >>decision about double shot. > I think this sort of attitude will >make the game very nasty. We have >a perfectly normal interpretation of >the laws: "at his own risk" means >that if someone breaks tempo for a >perfectly valid reason, and his >opponent misguesses what the reason >is then there is no redress. I am not talking about a perfectly valid reason. I am talking about no reason at all, inadvertent as in L73D1. >>Now, as I have seen no support from BLML >>to the double shot angle, I would very much like to ask this further question: >> >>Is the term "double shot" reserved for the >>situation, where a player chooses an >>anti-percentage line suggested by >>variations in an opponents tempo or >>manner, or is it applicable to a 50-50 >>guess also? And what if the suggested and >>chosen line is the percentage line? If it >>matters, where (roughly) is the dividing >>line between double shot and no double >>shot? > The "double shot" is a layman's >reference to a situation where a >player takes an action to gain >advantage in a way that is not >permitted >by the Laws, hoping to gain from a >ruling. Some people also ascribe it >to a person who has been perfectly >ethical, has done nothing wrong >whatever, but because of the >vagaries of Bridge Law, has been in >a >position where he gets two chances >to gain. People who have taken a >"double shot" in this latter sense >include 100% of all competitive >bridge players, which does not make >all of them unethical. [Just think >of the times you have called the TD >over a hesitation, and have then >called him back at the end for >redress: do you always call him back >to >adjust when you have got a good >score? No? You are a double->shotter!]. Now we are getting somewhere. We don't all share the same understanding of just what a double shot is? I can see why you object so fiercely to the double shot-question. You have interpreted it into a question of whether East "has taken an action to gain an advantage in a way that is not permitted by the Laws, hoping to gain from a ruling". I have been using the term double shot in the perfectly ethical, two-chance sense. Perhaps Grattan can clarify in which sense WBFLC has used the term in their Lille decision? > What we are required to do is to >apply the Laws, not to make up Laws >because we see some situation as a >potential gain for a non-offending >player and we don't like that. >There is a growing feeling in >NAmerica >that non-offenders should suffer as >well as offenders: I hope this >disease is not spreading. I share your hope. But who was talking of letting the non-offender suffer? Of course he should have whatever is necessary to do equity. snip of Law exercise > Once there is a fumble from the >left, whatever that means, the spade >finesse is a better percentage than >the squeeze. So it was before the fumble. > So this whole business >does not come into play, and to make >a ruling that splits the score in >this way would be most unsuitable. > The only reason I can think of for >your whole posting, Flemming, is >that you are suggesting it is wrong >to take advantage of opponent's >mannerisms. Obviously, if you do, >and they have misled you, there will >be rulings under L73F2. If you do >not like that as a principle, then >you are going against the Laws, >which permit it. Sorry, your guess is wrong. My reason for posting this case was that the Danish NAC spent a lot of time discussing the theoretical basis for a ruling, and being unsure myself I would like to hear opinions from this expert forum. And I think the answers to my questions has a fundamental bearing on what the game of bridge really is, and as such maybe would be of interest to most of BLML. I am certainly not suggesting that it is wrong to take advantage of opponent's mannerisms. What I am suggesting is, that if you do, and it turns out that the mannerism was inadvertent, then perhaps L73D1 (at your own risk) and the Lille interpretation (double shot) taken together means that you should receive no redress although your opponent is going to have the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. So far, noone has expressed support to my suggestion, and I will take that as evidence of my suggestion being wrong. - Earlier today, David wrote this reply to Jesper and a new question: >>> I thus consider he Danish NAC was wrong, since there was no case for a >>>split score: they have decided that declarer's actions in taking a >>>superior line were irrational, wild or gambling. In my view the Danish >>>NAC has misunderstood the Laws in this area rather than that their >>>judgement is flawed. >>I do not think that they have found declarer's actions >>irrational, wild or gambling; the written decision does not say >>so. >> >>They have chosen to use the L12C2 recipe directly for one side, >>but give a weighted average for the other side, thus creating a >>difference in the result much like the one that can result from >>the difference between "likely" and "at all probable". >> >>What is wrong with that? > Nothing: why did I not think that >is what they did? Perhaps my choice of subject line was rather unfortunate. I did not mean to imply any antagonism between innocent and double shot. Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 08:56:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:56:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13082 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:56:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from idefix (cph51.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.51]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA08284 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:55:45 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199912132155.WAA08284@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:56:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David reported: > in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: > > ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx > > the auction goes: > > rho you lho partner > pass pass pass 1h > 2c 3d* pass 3h** > pass ? > > 3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support Shouldn't that be "at least a limit raise with 4+ support", since the bid is obviously forcing? Does 3D deny a singleton? > 3h**=very slow > > would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? I don't know. I need to know about opener's system. What does 1H fourth in hand show? Four or five hearts? Shaded values possible? Is there an inference that opener holds spades if he has shaded values? These questions are not a matter of judgment to be determined by answering "how many players of this standard would...". Rather, they are facts to be determined by the TD. I consider it possible that the partnership agreements are such that the hand shown obviously warrants the slow route to game - in which case passing would not be a logical alternative. It is also possible that the methods are such that pass is a logical alternative - which I would vote for if the opener may hold a balanced hand with 44 in the majors and 12 HCP. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 09:39:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:39:30 +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 JAA13257 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:39:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11xe7e-000PS1-00; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:39:14 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01bf45ba$ecaa98a0$665408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan ENDICOTT" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Tim Goodwin" References: <3.0.6.32.19991213124423.0082e4f0@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:37:35 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott It is my opinion that if the next thousand years are anything like the last thousand years we will all be dead at the end of them. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Goodwin To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 5:44 PM Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods > As long as that measure does not result in the regulation being in > violation of the Laws. The ACBL can find an evalution measure which counts > AQJTxxx x xxx xx as 7 HCP which is 3 HCP (equivalent of a king) below the > average hand (10 HCP), and this measure is certainly standard and > widespread. But, you will have a hard time convincing me that AQJTxxx x > xxx xx is a king weaker than A92 K83 Q74 JT65 +=+ I find it curious that you do not regard an Ace, a Queen, and a Knave to be a King less than an Ace, a King, a Queen and a Knave. Of course, if we were talking about playing tricks clearly your distributional hand has more of them than the balanced hand you quote. But playing tricks are not material to the Law in which high card values define the limits within which there may be regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 10:21:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:21:16 +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 KAA13364 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:21:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh8t.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.29]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA17604 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:21:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991213181816.0076b9ac@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:18:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss In-Reply-To: <6Pe+0aBVoOV4EwXp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:44 PM 12/13/99 +0000, you wrote: >in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: > >ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx > >the auction goes: > >rho you lho partner >pass pass pass 1h >2c 3d* pass 3h** >pass ? > >3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support >3h**=very slow > >would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the >player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained >that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the >impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. Yes, Pass is a logical alternative, by any measure, and 4H is not a legal call. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 10:44:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:44:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13446 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:44:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:43:07 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991213183837.0079c300@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:38:37 -0500 To: "Grattan ENDICOTT" , "Bridge Laws" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <000f01bf45ba$ecaa98a0$665408c3@dodona> References: <3.0.6.32.19991213124423.0082e4f0@mail.maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:37 PM 12/13/99 -0000, Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: >+=+ I find it curious that you do not regard an Ace, a Queen, and a Knave >to be a King less than an Ace, a King, a Queen and a Knave. Of course, >if we were talking about playing tricks clearly your distributional hand has >more of them than the balanced hand you quote. But playing tricks are not >material to the Law in which high card values define the limits within which >there may be regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Are you saying that L40D should really read: "with a hand of a king or more below average *high card* strength."? Or, at least that this wording is the intention of the Law? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 11:00:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:00:59 +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 LAA13512 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:00:50 +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 11xfOP-000Mm4-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:00:38 +0000 Message-ID: <7F1fNpAyhYV4EwW5@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:59:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss In-Reply-To: <6Pe+0aBVoOV4EwXp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <6Pe+0aBVoOV4EwXp@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: > >ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx > >the auction goes: > >rho you lho partner >pass pass pass 1h >2c 3d* pass 3h** >pass ? > >3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support >3h**=very slow > >would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the >player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained >that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the >impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. > >if someone could post this message to the bridge laws discussion >group and report back, i'd appreciate it. > My view is that pass is not a logical alternative. One has a 7-loser hand and a 10 card fit, partner having opened in 4th and presumably not light. Both LTC and TNT suggest bidding on. I entirely accept the explanation given by the player, and would not conceive of anyone half- way decent actually passing. (They might think about it, but they wouldn't pass in practice) However, depending on jurisdiction, the score could be adjusted. In the uk, I'd NOT adjust. I'd be reasonably certain that most UK ACs would accept the player's explanation too. In the us, your guess is as good as mine. Cheers john. Feel free to quote this -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 11:50:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:50:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13634 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:50:27 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id o.0.3cd05063 (4218); Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:49:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.3cd05063.2586ee07@aol.com> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:49:11 EST Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods To: timg@maine.rr.com, dodona@clara.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 12/13/99 6:48:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, timg@maine.rr.com writes: > Are you saying that L40D should really read: > > "with a hand of a king or more below average *high card* strength."? > > Or, at least that this wording is the intention of the Law? > > Tim I sure hope so, because that is what this contretempts is all about, isn't it? Some of us don't like the evaluation methods, used, and the restrictions they put on our freedoms, so we are going to apply those we do like, and then tell 'em their Law is flawed. Makes no difference if we clearly know what they mean. Caveat emptor. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 12:50:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:50:35 +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 MAA13828 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:50:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-011.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.203]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA25854 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:49:42 GMT Message-ID: <00db01bf45d5$cffd5560$cb307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:51:56 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS posed the problem: in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx the auction goes: rho you lho partner pass pass pass 1h 2c 3d* pass 3h** pass ? 3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support 3h**=very slow would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. if someone could post this message to the bridge laws discussion group and report back, i'd appreciate it. pax, I think Pass is a logical alternative for most classes of player. 4H is not a clear standout call. The 'slow' 3H tends to mean 3œH. Regards, FOB From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 13:32:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:32:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13962 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:32:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from p4as09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.75] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11xJ1P-00003i-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 00:07:23 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 02:35:45 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf45db$ec629020$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, December 13, 1999 2:46 PM Subject: Query from OKBridge Discuss >in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: > >ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx > >the auction goes: > >rho you lho partner >pass pass pass 1h >2c 3d* pass 3h** >pass ? > >3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support >3h**=very slow > >would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the >player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained >that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the >impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. > >if someone could post this message to the bridge laws discussion >group and report back, i'd appreciate it. Whatever evaluation methods are in use, this hand has been bid. Pass is a logical alternative and bidding on is suggested by the hesitation. I would not allow a 4H bid after the hesitation, if 4H is making. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 16:37:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:37:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14565 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:37:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:36:57 -0800 Message-ID: <002e01bf45f5$3a871aa0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.19991213124423.0082e4f0@mail.maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:32:58 -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 Tim Goodwin wrote: > AQJTxxx x xxx xx is less than a king below average strength. > As such, a Zonal authority may not create a regulation which > is in accordance with the Laws and which prohibits me from > opening with a natural one spade when I hold that hand. > Yes. If the lawmakers intended "a king or more below average *high-card* strength," that's what they should have written. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 17:07:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:07:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe43.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA14656 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:06:54 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 19087 invoked by uid 65534); 14 Dec 1999 06:06:16 -0000 Message-ID: <19991214060616.19086.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.68] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <6Pe+0aBVoOV4EwXp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:06:12 -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 Supposedly responder has several conventions to select from to inform partner as to what type of raise he holds and selects 3D which in fact is a reasonable evaluation. Opener replies in two messages [a] that his hand is unsuitable to accept the game invitation and [b] could very well be suitable to accept but might depend on the nature of responder's values. [a] is an authorized message and [b] is an unauthorized message. Responder has a balanced hand with the minimum number of expected controls and the minimum honor values to offer an invitation opposite a minimum opening bid. The current hand and auction suggest that it is in the partnership's best interest to be plus. In a large percentage of cases, 4H will go down when opener can not accept. Pass is a LA to bidding 4H. Some might consider the supposed LOTT as appropriate hand evaluation, but I would suggest that in this case it relies more on the UI that opener is likely more than minimum than the intrinsic values held. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 6:44 AM Subject: Query from OKBridge Discuss > in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: > > ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx > > the auction goes: > > rho you lho partner > pass pass pass 1h > 2c 3d* pass 3h** > pass ? > > 3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support > 3h**=very slow > > would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the > player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained > that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the > impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. > > if someone could post this message to the bridge laws discussion > group and report back, i'd appreciate it. > > pax, > > henrysun > sinisterminister > there is no god by allah and mohammed is his prophet > > > -- > Relayed from the OKbridge discussion list (discuss@okbridge.com) > OKbridge -- Bridge on the Internet -- http://www.okbridge.com > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 17:10:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:10:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14679 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:10:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:10:39 -0800 Message-ID: <004f01bf45f9$efd12e60$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <7F1fNpAyhYV4EwW5@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:10:04 -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 John Probst wrote: > > > My view is that pass is not a logical alternative. One has a 7-loser > hand and a 10 card fit, partner having opened in 4th and presumably not > light. Maybe not light when the bid was made, but becoming light after the 2C overcall: S-Jxx H-AKJxx D-Qxx C-Kx. Opposite Ax; Qxxxx; Kxxx; xx, even 3H is in danger. Partner knows that this is IMPs, and did not bid 4H for some good reason. >Both LTC and TNT suggest bidding on. Not if opener's original LTC is inaccurate with regard to the club suit. > I entirely accept the > explanation given by the player, and would not conceive of anyone half- > way decent actually passing. (They might think about it, but they > wouldn't pass in practice) I would, but I guess that doesn't contradict your statement. With those weak diamonds, I would just respond 3H for fear partner might get too enthusiastic about a mild diamond fit like Honor-xx. I would want at least K109x in diamonds, or a five-card suit, for a 3D response. With one less heart and one more club, I would just respond 2H, so 3H seems about right. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 18:03:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:03:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from NS.F1.NET.AU ([203.30.219.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14773 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:03:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([203.30.219.113]) by NS.F1.NET.AU with ESMTP (IPAD 2.0) id 9473700 ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:52:29 EST From: "Fred D Curtis" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:01:50 +1100 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 Message-Id: <199912142252.9473700@NS.F1.NET.AU> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sure, there is UI with the slow 3H, which logically could only be suggesting/suggestive of a higher contract. The issue is how clearcut is the bid of 4H? First issue: what did the 1H opening show: 4M 5M limited openings.... I assume "white" is the equivalent of all green (that is nil vul) as opposed to favourable. In Oz (the wonderful land of) we favour green or red.... On the face of it having elected to treat the hand as a limit raise you should pass but 1) defensively the hand is a limit raise with a K & A outside, so to treat it completely pre-emptively would be a mistake, and misdirect partner if the next bid were 3S/4C/5C.... this hand is a semi-classical mixed raise 2) the system agreements (if any) of the partnership are relevant (that 3D limit in competition without further info suggests some understandings) 3) at imps I would have to be tied down to stop me bidding 4H opposite a 5M opening in 4th seat , even green - or is it white for cowardice? 4) Admittedly the pre-emptive value has been lost but this could make opposite an average hand xxx Axxxx AQx Ax (7 losers), KQxx AKxxx x xxx (6 L but wishful on 12HCP) 5) the explanation as to intention is interesting but hardly decisive ex post facto, but if the pair had system notes as to treatment of mixed raises in competition or similar, that would be relevant (NB any serious long-term partnership should have understandings over time whether or not they are written) 6) Although inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, I still think this is a 75% action (not that it must have a 75% success ratio) just that 75% good players would be likely to adjudge it as the bid they would make and fairly clearcut. but I'm not dogmatic and wou;ld not quibble if the panel says otherwise - after all Downunder is known for chronic overbidding even before the LAW.. 7) there are other sequences where the sequence to show some defensive values on the way to 4H is clearcut eg if RHO was not a passed hand, or if he had jumped to 2S and you might anticipate with a higher degree of probability additional bidding from the oppos ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Query from OKBridge Discuss > Date: Monday, 13 December 1999 23:44 > > in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: > > ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx > > the auction goes: > > rho you lho partner > pass pass pass 1h > 2c 3d* pass 3h** > pass ? > > 3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support > 3h**=very slow > > would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the > player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained > that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the > impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. > > if someone could post this message to the bridge laws discussion > group and report back, i'd appreciate it. > > pax, > > henrysun > sinisterminister > there is no god by allah and mohammed is his prophet > > > -- > Relayed from the OKbridge discussion list (discuss@okbridge.com) > OKbridge -- Bridge on the Internet -- http://www.okbridge.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 20:10:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:10:01 +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 UAA15031 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:09:52 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA18455 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:09:14 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:09 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods 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: <000f01bf45ba$ecaa98a0$665408c3@dodona> "Grattan ENDICOTT" wrote: > > As long as that measure does not result in the regulation being in > > violation of the Laws. The ACBL can find an evalution measure which > counts > > AQJTxxx x xxx xx as 7 HCP which is 3 HCP (equivalent of a king) below > > the > > average hand (10 HCP), and this measure is certainly standard and > > widespread. But, you will have a hard time convincing me that > > AQJTxxx x > > xxx xx is a king weaker than A92 K83 Q74 JT65 > > +=+ I find it curious that you do not regard an Ace, a Queen, and a > Knave > to be a King less than an Ace, a King, a Queen and a Knave. Of course, > if we were talking about playing tricks clearly your distributional > hand has more of them than the balanced hand you quote. > But playing tricks are not material to the Law in which high card values > define the limits within which there may be regulation. Presumably you refer to some secret law of which the general public is unaware. The relatively well know one about "a King less than average strength" makes no reference to HCP and can be applied happily whether you use LTC, HCP, or a more sophisticated evaluation approach (*obviously a much more sensible phrasing of the law then "fewer than 8HCP"). Using LTC it may be that about 8 losers is a "hand of average strength" and thus A92,K83,Q74,JT65 is actually a king below whereas the spade hand is a king *above*. Or take a hand like AKT9x,Kxx,x,T9xx IMO (although I'd be hard pressed to quantify the mathematics) changing HK to C8 barely affects the value of the hand but changing SK to DJ destroys it. It seems bizarre that anyone but a novice or a total Walrus could fail to appreciate such basic stuff (although obviously judgements around the margins may differ). Tim West-Meads * although it seems from some postings that the lawmakers were suffering from an unwarranted rush of thoughtfulness at the time:-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 20:41:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:41:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA15119 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:41:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.unimuenster.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:40:44 +0100 Message-ID: <004a01bf4617$5a0da8e0$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> From: Richard Bley To: bridge-laws Subject: Fw: Fw: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:41:09 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.3825.400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 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 UAA15120 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, made a post in okb. Think itŽs interesting here as well Cheers Richard : Several posters indicated that after making the hand an invitational one : itŽs always using UI to bid game in such sequenes. : : I think this is a bit faulty. : The question you should ask here is: : How many players of comparabel strength would bid 3D only to bid game on : after 3H? If this quota is more than 75% you should allow 4H. : : For answering this you need: : a) System they play including the 3rd Hand opening style : b) The strengh of the player involved. : : > >>in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: : > >> : > >>ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx : > >> : > >>the auction goes: : > >> : > >>rho you lho partner : > >>pass pass pass 1h : > >>2c 3d* pass 3h** : > >>pass ? : > >> : > >>3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support : > >>3h**=very slow : > : > >>if someone could post this message to the bridge laws discussion : > >>group and report back, i'd appreciate it. : > >> : > : > many thanks to peter gill for providing me with responses to the blml : > to date. he has forwarded eight responses, of which seven are from : > national-quality directors from various venues. so far, three would : > allow the 4h call (one said in his response that it would depend on : > method, and knowing the methods involved i am certain that he would : > allow it); of these, one is from the acbl and one from the uk. : > : > four responses would roll back the bidding to 3h; these include : > dutch, american, irish, and welsh directors. : > : > so no matter how one evaluates this on one's own, it appears that : > the issue is far closer than it appears at first sight. and i find : > it curious that the two american/usa comments were split, as they : > allegedly use the same definition of la (seriously consider...). : > : > were one to extrapolate from the discussion to date, and it has been : > the most intense bridge-oriented discussion i have seen on discuss : > for many years, one might opine that (1) the appeals committee : > process in the us is far more dependent on the luck of who is on : > the committee than one might believe; (2) that this is a very close : > decision, and hence the appeals committee will come under criticism : > from someone no matter what decision is made; (3) and that the : > question might well be raised that if the committee is divided on : > whether passing 3h is a logical alternative, does not that uncertainty : > indicate that raising to 4h does not reach the bar of permissibility? : > : No. You have to find the border and this will always be difficult. : : : : Cheers : Richard : From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 22:18:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:18:38 +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 WAA15417 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:18:26 +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 11xpyA-0005AM-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:18:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:41:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> When the bidding goes p p 1h p 2c p p to East, when the hand is >>played, East has a certain amount of MI, provided by a failure to alert. >>It is my view, and the EBU's stated view, that when we adjust we do so >>as though the player was correctly informed. We do not adjust as though >>he was both correctly and wrongly informed, and he gets the benefit from >>both - and I do not think we should. >When we are adjusting, MI is no problem in itself, since we are >adjusting based on full knowledge. But a missing alert seems to >me to then be equivalent to a mannerism: if N had looked >distinctly happy or unhappy with the situation before passing, >would you not allow that hesitation to be used (assuming it could >be used, of course - the example is bad) by E even when >adjusting? Not really: the mannerism is based on the problem that is not going to be there? I think the analogy is confusing. I do not see that an adjustment should be based on MI and correct explanation simultaneously. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+4 late] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 14 22:18:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:18:35 +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 WAA15415 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:18:22 +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 11xpy4-000Cqm-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:18:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:37:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods References: <000601bf4586$b6130fe0$b5a893c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000601bf4586$b6130fe0$b5a893c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott================================ >When the mice rule, cats beware! >:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 13 December 1999 07:45 >Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods > > >>Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: >>> >>>Grattan Endicott >>>Half the day at gester@globalnet.co.uk >>>Half the night at Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk >>>Invites duplication of messages to both for 24-hour service! >>>================================================ >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: David J. Grabiner >>>To: >>>Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 8:14 PM >>>Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods >>> >>> >>>> At 8:58 AM +0000 12/11/99, Grattan ENDICOTT wrote: >>>> >>>> > David Grabiner wrote: >>>> >>>+=+ These are not regulations which govern the use of natural >>>1NT openers; they are regulations which govern the use of >>>conventions. They are made under the powers granted in Law >>>40D where it says: "The sponsoring organization may regulate >>>the use of bidding or play conventions." This power is entirely >>>unrestricted. The regulating authority has the power to forbid >>>use of a convention in whatever circumstances it may decide. >> >> Are you sure? I think we have had a debate in the past about natural >>justice. Are you sure that all the following regulations are legal: >> >>Stayman may not be played by black men. >>Blackwood may not be played by females. >> >> I think the regulation of conventions is pretty wide, but I am not >>convinced that an SO can really do anything it likes without challenge. >> >> Let us make it quite clear what regulation you are supporting: >> >> You may play an opening 1NT as 10-12 HCP, as a minimum. If you agree >>to play it as 10-12 HCP, and do play it as 10-12 HCP, but your judgement >>of a specific hand is different from the SO's, then you may not play >>Stayman thereafter. >> >> Are you really happy with that? Nothing about playing 9-12 HCP, when >>I am convinced limiting Stayman is a legitimate ploy, merely deviating >>for judgement reasons. >> >+=+ I was dealing with bridge law. Your racial and >sexist examples are not matters for bridge law but >for national and international law. +=+ > >+=+ As to bridge law, I refer to a letter from Kaplan >that I have on file, if I dig for it. As closely as I recall >it says: "(In regulating conventions) if a sponsoring >organisation wishes to require that any player who >has an agreement to use the 'wizard' convention >must wear a conical yellow hat it is empowered to >do so. We may think the regulation ridiculous but >it is not unlawful under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. >The power to regulate conventions has no restrictions." >Until Law 40D is altered it gives unlimited powers to >regulating authorities. You may not like it, but this is >how it is. Frequent use of 'judgement' converts to >habit and partnership understanding and is then >subject to regulation, as for example players who open >a 12-14 NT on 11 often enough for it to require >disclosure. > >[You may know whether the EBU has a view on the >operation of O.B.12.5.2 where a partnership is >discovered to make a regular habit of opening >9 counts for judgmental reasons? And what >is the attitude where a player likes to open a >natural 1NT with a singleton?] I know a red herring when I see one. I am not being drawn into a totally different argument that easily! The problem with the ACBL approach is that it has *nothing* to do with regular habits. What you are agreeing with is the ACBL approach that Stayman after an agreed 10-12 1NT is illegal on the *first* occasion it has 9 HCP [plus four tens and a good five-card suit]. You know that I am happy with regular habits creating implicit agreements but that is not the question at issue here. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Emails received on birthday: Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+4 late] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 00:02:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:02:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15762 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:02:04 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.0.3996c18d (3738); Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:59:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.3996c18d.25879949@aol.com> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:59:53 EST Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss To: axman22@hotmail.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 12/14/99 1:11:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, axman22@hotmail.com writes: > Supposedly responder has several conventions to select from to inform > partner as to what type of raise he holds and selects 3D which in fact is a > reasonable evaluation. Opener replies in two messages [a] that his hand is > unsuitable to accept the game invitation and [b] could very well be suitable > to accept but might depend on the nature of responder's values. [a] is an > authorized message and [b] is an unauthorized message. > > Responder has a balanced hand with the minimum number of expected controls > and the minimum honor values to offer an invitation opposite a minimum > opening bid. The current hand and auction suggest that it is in the > partnership's best interest to be plus. In a large percentage of cases, 4H > will go down when opener can not accept. Pass is a LA to bidding 4H. > > Some might consider the supposed LOTT as appropriate hand evaluation, but I > would suggest that in this case it relies more on the UI that opener is > likely more than minimum than the intrinsic values held. > Succinctly stated and I'm in full agreement. I thought that this was an obvious one at the original posting, and am a bit amazed that some have found it to be otherwise. Making an agreed invitational bid as a partnership understanding, having partner decline the invitation coupled with a UI hesitation is putting the handcuffs on partner to override that decision. The stated "I'll always bid 4 on this hand, etc., " only works when partner gives the smoothest, non-informative pass he can give, and when his hand shows up with no extra values. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 00:12:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:12:04 +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 AAA15826 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:11:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 20627 invoked from network); 14 Dec 1999 13:11:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.133) by jaguars with SMTP; 14 Dec 1999 13:11:41 -0000 Message-ID: <38564221.2A02AC1A@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:12:01 +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 To: directing Subject: 13 1/2 cards Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk here's one that caused a fair amount of page-turning at my clubs pairs championship last night. table a: defender points out to declarer in the middle of play that there is a face-down card on the floor by his chair. declarer picks it up and "restores" it to his hand. at the end of play he finds that he now has fourteen cards. he has tried to do something with the 14 card suit which didn't work, giving him well below average. table b: has played the board with 51 cards and due to the fact that the missing card created a void, bid to a slam, claiming part way through, and getting an outright top. the laws dont seem to allow for a 53 card pack.....ideas? larry From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 00:40:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:40:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from slot0-94.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-94.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15956 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:40:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-94.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA14409 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:39:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:39:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Stop card Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I found a copy of regulations quoted by the Odlins at http://www.acbl.org/regulations/skipbid.htm. If these regulations are not correct, they should be replaced with an updated copy and the new regulations should be published in the Bulletin. IIRC, these regs are the last ones published in the Bulletin. It has always seemed odd that so many Americans use the British method given that the "ACBL" method was published. That said, the most important point is that we don't have half the folks using the stop card one way and half the other. It just doesn't work when there are zero or two people attempting to set tempo ;-). Bruce Bruce Moore , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au wrote: : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- : Hash: SHA1 :>I'd like to highlight a few points of the regulation that Richard :>quoted. In the ACBL, proper procedure is: :> :> 1. Place Stop card on the table :> 2. Place your bid on the table :> 3. Replace Stop card in the bidding box :> :>That is, the hand following the skip bid is responsible for the pause. :>The other point most often missed is that the hand following the skip :>bid is expected to pause on any skip bid, even if the Stop card is not :>used. :> :>Note that this differs from (in my understanding anyway) the regulation :>used in Great Britain. In the EBU proper procedure is: :> :> 1. Place stop card on the table :> 2. Place your bid on the table :> 3. Wait 10 seconds :> 4. Replace Stop card in the bidding box :> :>Unfortunately, many folks in the ACBL use the British regulations. : I recently had occasion to ask rulings@acbl.org about this question. The reply: :>From: Butch Campbell (Gary Blaiss) :>To: ereppert@rochester.rr.com :>Subject: use of the stop card -Reply :>Mime-Version: 1.0 :> :>The stop card should be left out an :>appropriate amount of time. Failure to do so :>does not eliminate the requirement for the :>person next to call waiting the appropriate :>amount of time. : So, while _I_ agree that the ACBL regulation is as you say, it appears even : some at ACBL headquarters feel differently. Yes, the meat is that the onus : is on the person next to call, yet here we are told the one making the skip : bid should also be responsible. : 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/AwUBOFR0zb2UW3au93vOEQJEogCdESfU6JsVHCZ5Mi85rSzjb2jcVXwAoOLB : IXthNg1MeufU0hhbDcu3aVCd : =DRn2 : -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 00:45:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:45:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe40.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA15981 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:45:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 93394 invoked by uid 65534); 14 Dec 1999 13:45:05 -0000 Message-ID: <19991214134505.93393.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.10] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" , References: <0.3996c18d.25879949@aol.com> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:45:08 -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 Why should a player, or adjudicator, consider that handcuffs are in place if no UI is/was detected/available when opener in fact has undisclosed values? I could realize that without such extras that there would likely be no question of freedom of movment, but for freedom I would consider it a bit extreme a condtion. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 6:59 AM Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss > In a message dated 12/14/99 1:11:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, > axman22@hotmail.com writes: > > > Supposedly responder has several conventions to select from to inform > > partner as to what type of raise he holds and selects 3D which in fact is a > > reasonable evaluation. Opener replies in two messages [a] that his hand is > > unsuitable to accept the game invitation and [b] could very well be > suitable > > to accept but might depend on the nature of responder's values. [a] is an > > authorized message and [b] is an unauthorized message. > > > > Responder has a balanced hand with the minimum number of expected controls > > and the minimum honor values to offer an invitation opposite a minimum > > opening bid. The current hand and auction suggest that it is in the > > partnership's best interest to be plus. In a large percentage of cases, 4H > > will go down when opener can not accept. Pass is a LA to bidding 4H. > > > > Some might consider the supposed LOTT as appropriate hand evaluation, but I > > would suggest that in this case it relies more on the UI that opener is > > likely more than minimum than the intrinsic values held. > > > > Succinctly stated and I'm in full agreement. I thought that this was an > obvious one at the original posting, and am a bit amazed that some have found > it to be otherwise. Making an agreed invitational bid as a partnership > understanding, having partner decline the invitation coupled with a UI > hesitation is putting the handcuffs on partner to override that decision. > The stated "I'll always bid 4 on this hand, etc., " only works when partner > gives the smoothest, non-informative pass he can give, and when his hand > shows up with no extra values. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 01:37:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:37:25 +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 BAA16195 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:37:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-23-218.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.23.218]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA07681 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:37:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3854F2BD.F20A1174@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:21:01 +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: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:57:39 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >> Now the pieces easily fall into place. What would have happened had > >> West known that 2C was Drury and known that North had not alerted it? > > > >This isn't. > > > >In the abstract form of the game, EW know their opponent's > >system better than NS do, so there is no need to have > >alerts. > >The alert, or the absense of one, is Authorized but > >not-Entitled Information (AnEI). > > I am not quite sure what you mean here. > > There was no alert at the table. This is AI to EW. The only > "abstract" thing about the situation is that we are trying to > imagine what would be a "likely" (L12C2) outcome if EW knew NS's > system. A situation where N had alerted is irrelevant. > > If it is considered likely that W would choose to pass when N > does not alert 2C, then we should adjust based on that. > No we should not. We should ask what would have happened had N alerted, and explained correctly. West is entitled to know that 2C is Drury, but he is not entitled to know that 2C is Drury AND that N has forgotten this. If he has read the CC and knows that 2C is Drury, then the fact that North does not alert is AI to him, and so he is allowed to pass, but in the abstract case, we do not need to give him the two pieces of information. I believe that this is a very classical type of ruling, which we often encounter, and of which I do not believe I an the only one to solve it thusly. > So I agree completely with Adam. > And you are both wrong. IMO. > And now for a slightly different hypothetical case: > > What if W actually _had_ known NS's system and therefore had > passed, and it then turned out that N knew his system perfectly > well, he had just forgotten to alert? > Well, the failure to alert is AI to him, but he cannot blame redress for following this. If he tells the story, he cannot ask for a ruling on MI, since he did know. North has mislead, but without malicious intent. The only possible Law would be L73F2, but I don't see how N could have known that not alerting could work in his benefit, since any non-alerting should work in his detriment. > It seems obvious to me that W's choice of pass is then at his own > risk, and that he should get no redress if he ends up with a > worse score than the one that would result from doubling 2C. He > is entitled to know NS's system, not to know whether N has > forgotten his system. In other words, I do not believe that > forgetting to alert is a mannerism that can result in a L73F2 > adjustment when opponents are not actually misled about the > meaning of the call. indeed - I should have read on before answering and spending 5 minutes RTFLBing attempting to find L73F2. However, Jesper, you correctly write that W is entitled to know the system, but not that N has forgotten it. Then why do you side with Adam above ? > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 01:47:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:47:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16242 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:47:39 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.0.93a2fb1f (4211); Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:46:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:46:49 EST Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss To: axman22@hotmail.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 12/14/99 8:45:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, axman22@hotmail.com writes: > Why should a player, or adjudicator, consider that handcuffs are in place if > no UI is/was detected/available when opener in fact has undisclosed values? > I could realize that without such extras that there would likely be no > question of freedom of movment, but for freedom I would consider it a bit > extreme a condtion. > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas Forgive my imprecise use of language. I find that these "free" decisions somehow materialize mostly when hesitating partner has additional values for the "pass.". An analogy is the husband/wife partnership who is never out of tempo, but also never wrong in 1S - 2S - 3S (?do I bid 4 or not?) Perish the thought that there might be some subliminal communication - but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. I think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 01:50:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:50:15 +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 BAA16266 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:50:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:49:39 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA04730 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:43:56 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'directing'" Subject: RE: 13 1/2 cards Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:33:20 +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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk masterit wrote: >here's one that caused a fair amount of page-turning at my clubs pairs >championship last night. > >table a: defender points out to declarer in the middle of play that >there is a face-down card on the floor by his chair. declarer picks it >up and "restores" it to his hand. at the end of play he finds that he >now has fourteen cards. he has tried to do something with the 14 card >suit which didn't work, giving him well below average. > >table b: has played the board with 51 cards and due to the fact that the >missing card created a void, bid to a slam, claiming part way through, >and getting an outright top. > >the laws dont seem to allow for a 53 card pack.....ideas? > >larry We can be quick about table B. This is described exactly in L14B3 - the missing card is deemed to have belonged to the deficient hand all the time. TD adjusts, possibly treating the missing card as a revoke (depends on whether the offender should have played it). Concerning table A, well, declarer destroyed the deal by picking up a card which did not belong to his hand. One cannot play bridge with a 53-card pack. Therefore I give A- for declarer (declarer is responsible for keeping track of his own cards), A+ for defenders. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen, Netherlands martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 01:58:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:05:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from anagyris.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-1.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16045 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:04:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by anagyris.wanadoo.fr; 14 Dec 1999 15:03:45 +0100 Received: from lormant (164.138.107.208) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 14 Dec 1999 15:03:17 +0100 Message-ID: <38564C93.1A5A@wanadoo.fr> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:56:35 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: UI or not UI ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk South is playing 7S. Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 South: K 9 8 2 South does not have trick to lose in the other colours. First trick is won by South with AC. B U T South calls the AS from dummy as attack for 2nd trick. In same time, dummy says " you have to play from your hand, partner". TD is required. TD explains: " Either defender may accept the lead" and West says " OK, I accept". Now, Declarer thinks " probably, if W accepts he has the Queen " and after Ace, he plays KS and " eats" the QS 2nd in the West hand! What is your ruling? General case: Do you think that an option by no offending side may become an UI for offending side? Sorry for my very poor English language. Amicalement Philippe From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 03:07:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:54:29 +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 BAA16292 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:54:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA29357; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:54:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJHWXKZS18002T27@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:53:09 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:53:09 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:53:05 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: 13 1/2 cards To: "'masterit@cableinet.co.uk'" , directing Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A new one!! Not explicitly covered by the laws. Let us try to follow a formal approach. Declarer may pick up all kind of stuff and add it to his hand, as long as it doesn't interfer with normal play. You may think of a bunch of creditcards for example. As long as they don't look as playing cards (do we have those collectors items?) there will not be a problem. If at the end this 'credit card' is still in his hands the play wasn't technically influenced and the result is 'normal'. If he put down that extra card in a trick, there wasn't a played card in that trick and law 67B1 (orA)applies. The 51 cards situation is (almost) standard (we hardly ever play with 52 cards in my club) and should be solved with 64C (even if discovered by the TD 20 minutes after play by carefully counting all hands, as John will admit) ton (nice problem and good laws) here's one that caused a fair amount of page-turning at my clubs pairs championship last night. table a: defender points out to declarer in the middle of play that there is a face-down card on the floor by his chair. declarer picks it up and "restores" it to his hand. at the end of play he finds that he now has fourteen cards. he has tried to do something with the 14 card suit which didn't work, giving him well below average. table b: has played the board with 51 cards and due to the fact that the missing card created a void, bid to a slam, claiming part way through, and getting an outright top. the laws dont seem to allow for a 53 card pack.....ideas? larry From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 03:31:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:31:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA16853 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:31:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.unimuenster.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:30:51 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01bf4650$a6585cc0$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> From: Richard Bley To: "Kooijman, A." , masterit , directing References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:31:17 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.3825.400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 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 DAA16854 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: ; "directing" Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 3:53 PM Subject: RE: 13 1/2 cards : : A new one!! Not explicitly covered by the laws. Let us try to follow a : formal approach. Declarer may pick up all kind of stuff and add it to his : hand, as long as it doesn't interfer with normal play. You may think of a : bunch of creditcards for example. As long as they don't look as playing : cards (do we have those collectors items?) there will not be a problem. If : at the end this 'credit card' is still in his hands the play wasn't : technically influenced and the result is 'normal'. If he put down that extra : card in a trick, there wasn't a played card in that trick and law 67B1 : (orA)applies. Well I had this in a league game 5 years ago. The player bid with 14 cards and played (he was dummy). Now a defender announced, that there must be sth wrong with the dummy. I was called. Of course the dummy had 14 cards (7card diamond suit instead of 6) The diamond 3 was added to the pack. After not finding any law for this subject I let them play the board (the defenders didnt agree with me, because on this way the opps found an unbeatable 3NT :-). IŽm delighted, that you, Ton handle this situation identical ;-) However I still have a problem with this: How should I handle the fact that one defender "knows" now, that his pard has the three of diamonds? Is this UI? Is this UI only for declarer? BTW: This is a fairly common problem when you play DOOP or sth like this ;-) Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 03:53:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:19:35 +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 DAA16813 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:19:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21815 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:19:19 +0100 Message-ID: <38566DD5.4823269E@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:18:29 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: <38564C93.1A5A@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk LORMANT Philippe wrote: > > South is playing 7S. > Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 > South: K 9 8 2 > > South does not have trick to lose in the other colours. > First trick is won by South with AC. B U T South calls the AS from > dummy as attack for 2nd trick. In same time, dummy says " you have to > play from your hand, partner". TD is required. TD explains: " Either > defender may accept the lead" and West says " OK, I accept". > Now, Declarer thinks " probably, if W accepts he has the Queen " and > after Ace, he plays KS and " eats" the QS 2nd in the West hand! > > What is your ruling? General case: Do you think that an option by no > offending side may become an UI for offending side? > > Sorry for my very poor English language. > > Amicalement > Philippe L16: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The fact that West chooses to accept the LOOT is not an information obtained from legal call or play. L16C2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non offending side is unauthorized. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information. ------------------------------------------------------------------- One might argue that this Law doesn't apply as there is no "withdrawn action" here. I'd vote it does; IM(H)O the wording is flawed but the interpretation that all information based on the choice the NOs made is UI, is a sensible one. So in this particular case I rule 7S= only if it is East who holds the Q of S (playing from the top is irrational; things would be different had declarer had nine trumps; in that case I would let declarer take all tricks only if somebody held the queen singleton or _Eest_ held the Qx). I hope all BLMLers will share my opinion. If we let declarer "find" the Qx in West's hand it would mean we will give declarer the possibility to do the equivalent of putting the cards to the duplicate board without saying a word and checking who will protest. The latter is illegal and the TD will adjust according to the L70E. I see no reason why declarer should benefit from his irregularity. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Dec 15 04:49:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 04:49:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from copper.singnet.com.sg (smtp2.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA17134 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 04:49:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from derrrr (58zulu139.singnet.com.sg [165.21.144.149]) by copper.singnet.com.sg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA23634 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:49:26 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991215014355.0083ca90@pop.singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:43:55 +0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Derrick Subject: Judgement on the convention card Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all With respect to the recent thread on regulation of evaluation methods, my partnership uses the WBF convention card and have included this on the card and in the supplementary notes. Would like to have an opinion whether in wbf tournaments this is a) legal b) acceptable c) "self-serving" in the BL sense d) just obvious common sense and need not be there and what would the situation be in ACBL and EBU ? Thanks Derrick PS: I play in Singapore and we're still evolving our convention regulations Note 0: BRIDGE JUDGEMENT IS PART OF OUR SYSTEM We respect each other’s judgement and allow each other the freedom to evaluate the hand appropriately. Our bidding is not just based blindly on HCP. Other judgement factors taken into account include: distribution, location and type of honours, ruffing values, long suits, suit quality (including intermediates), implications of partner’s prior bidding (including prior passes, the degree of fit and strength promised), implications of opponents’ bidding, losing trick count and law of total tricks. Thus when the systemic convention card states for example X HCP or invitational or maximum, it means a hand that in our judgement is equivalent in strength to X HCP or invitational or maximum. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 06:17:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 06:17:34 +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 GAA17370 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 06:17:25 +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 OAA29856 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:17:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA01122 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:17:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:17:20 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912141917.OAA01122@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > LORMANT Philippe wrote: > > South is playing 7S. > > Spades are like this: Dummy: A J 10 3 > > South: K 9 8 2 (I think 'V' was the valet, not the vrouw.) > From: Konrad Ciborowski > L16: > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information > from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. > To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an > infraction of law. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The fact that West chooses to accept the LOOT is not an information > obtained from legal call or play. But that doesn't mean it is unauthorized. There is no way the list in L16 can be considered a complete list of AI. Generally, operation of law is considered AI for all players. > L16C2 > One might argue that this Law doesn't apply as there is no > "withdrawn action" here. Yes, I for one would argue precisely that. > I hope all BLMLers will share my opinion. If we let declarer > "find" the Qx in West's hand it would mean we will give declarer > the possibility to do the equivalent of putting the cards to > the duplicate board without saying a word and checking who will > protest. Well, that's an interesting maneuver, too. I'd suggest what we are looking for is L72B1. (Isn't it amazing how widely it applies? How did we ever get along without it?) However, I don't think the conditions of L72B1 are met in the original case. How could declarer know he would benefit? If West has Qxx, he will accept the A and declarer is cooked. Even with the actual holding, East could accept the lead, or West could say nothing, letting declarer guess wrong. But this is bridge judgment, and against some players, I suppose declarer's maneuver could be beneficial. If you think so in the actual case, then by all means adjust the score. In Konrad's example -- cards back in the board with no statement -- I agree that L70E is enough, but we would have L72B1 for similar types of irregularities where there is no specific law. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 06:52:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 06:52:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17491 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 06:52:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:52:25 -0800 Message-ID: <007801bf466c$bd683a40$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan ENDICOTT" , References: <3.0.6.32.19991213124423.0082e4f0@mail.maine.rr.com> <002e01bf45f5$3a871aa0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> <000201bf4617$a73936c0$f25608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:52:19 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It has been stated that interpreting a "king or more below average strength" as including distributional strength does not reflect the lawmakers' obvious intent. I guess I have to agree. However, both the lawmakers and the ACBL seem to have overlooked a hand with which I would open 1S routinely, even though I am a quite conservative opening bidder (e.g., I pass most of those ugly 12 HCP hands that have no good suit): S-AK109xxx H-xxx D-x C-xx It is simply wrong to forbid me to open 1S, or to have a law that allows a ZA to forbid it. Herman says that any simple rule is going to include some illogical restriction, but I don't think this one is necessary. Somehow, some way, I must have the right to open 1S, so please forgive my grasping at legal straws. As a corollary, it should be legal to bar an initial action at the one level with S-Qxxx H-Qxx D-Qxx C-Qxx, 8 HCP. This hand is at least a king below average high-card strength, but the 4-3-2-1 count doesn't recognize that. On the other hand, when employing the excellent (for suit bidding) 3-2-1-1/2 count used by the Four Aces (Schenken, Gottlieb, Jacoby, and Burnstine) , an average hand has 6-1/2 HCP, and a king less than that 4-1/2, so the four-queen opening could be made illegal, while my AK hand could not. I guess our argument is mostly with the ACBL, not the WBF, although there should be some way that the Laws could prevent the travesty of using the notrump-based 4-3-2-1 count to measure the strength of a hand when opening one of a suit. How about "less than two defensive tricks" for a one-level suit opening? That would mean my AK hand could not be barred, and the four-queen hand, or a hand with just an ace and a king in different suits, could be. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 08:02:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:02:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from apeiba.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17760 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:02:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by apeiba.wanadoo.fr; 14 Dec 1999 22:02:03 +0100 Received: from lormant (164.138.107.208) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 14 Dec 1999 22:01:09 +0100 Message-ID: <3856AE8A.1D4D@wanadoo.fr> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:54:34 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: <199912141917.OAA01122@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > LORMANT Philippe wrote: > > > South is playing 7S. > > > Spades are like this: Dummy: A J 10 3 > > > South: K 9 8 2 > (I think 'V' was the valet, not the vrouw.) > Yes, I apologize V it's mistake; of course you have to read J. Sorry > > From: Konrad Ciborowski > > L16: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information > > from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. > > To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an > > infraction of law. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The fact that West chooses to accept the LOOT is not an information > > obtained from legal call or play. > > But that doesn't mean it is unauthorized. There is no way the list in > L16 can be considered a complete list of AI. Generally, operation of > law is considered AI for all players. > > > L16C2 > > One might argue that this Law doesn't apply as there is no > > "withdrawn action" here. > > Yes, I for one would argue precisely that. > > > I hope all BLMLers will share my opinion. If we let declarer > > "find" the Qx in West's hand it would mean we will give declarer > > the possibility to do the equivalent of putting the cards to > > the duplicate board without saying a word and checking who will > > protest. > > Well, that's an interesting maneuver, too. > > I'd suggest what we are looking for is L72B1. (Isn't it amazing how > widely it applies? How did we ever get along without it?) > > However, I don't think the conditions of L72B1 are met in the original > case. How could declarer know he would benefit? If West has Qxx, he > will accept the A and declarer is cooked. Even with the actual > holding, East could accept the lead, or West could say nothing, letting > declarer guess wrong. But this is bridge judgment, and against some > players, I suppose declarer's maneuver could be beneficial. If you > think so in the actual case, then by all means adjust the score. > > In Konrad's example -- cards back in the board with no statement -- I > agree that L70E is enough, but we would have L72B1 for similar types > of irregularities where there is no specific law. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 08:10:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:10:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from bassia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-5.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.159]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17791 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:10:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by bassia.wanadoo.fr; 14 Dec 1999 22:10:22 +0100 Received: from lormant (164.138.107.208) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 14 Dec 1999 22:09:40 +0100 Message-ID: <3856B08D.745A@wanadoo.fr> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:03:09 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: <199912141917.OAA01122@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > LORMANT Philippe wrote: > > > South is playing 7S. > > > Spades are like this: Dummy: A J 10 3 > > > South: K 9 8 2 > (I think 'V' was the valet, not the vrouw.) > > > From: Konrad Ciborowski > > L16: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information > > from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. > > To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an > > infraction of law. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The fact that West chooses to accept the LOOT is not an information > > obtained from legal call or play. > > But that doesn't mean it is unauthorized. There is no way the list in > L16 can be considered a complete list of AI. Generally, operation of > law is considered AI for all players. > > > L16C2 > > One might argue that this Law doesn't apply as there is no > > "withdrawn action" here. > > Yes, I for one would argue precisely that. > > > I hope all BLMLers will share my opinion. If we let declarer > > "find" the Qx in West's hand it would mean we will give declarer > > the possibility to do the equivalent of putting the cards to > > the duplicate board without saying a word and checking who will > > protest. > > Well, that's an interesting maneuver, too. > > I'd suggest what we are looking for is L72B1. (Isn't it amazing how > widely it applies? How did we ever get along without it?) > > However, I don't think the conditions of L72B1 are met in the original > case. How could declarer know he would benefit? If West has Qxx, he > will accept the A and declarer is cooked. Even with the actual > holding, East could accept the lead, or West could say nothing, letting > declarer guess wrong. But this is bridge judgment, and against some > players, I suppose declarer's maneuver could be beneficial. If you > think so in the actual case, then by all means adjust the score. > > In Konrad's example -- cards back in the board with no statement -- I > agree that L70E is enough, but we would have L72B1 for similar types > of irregularities where there is no specific law. In my opinion, 16C2 doesn't apply because we have no withdrawn action Same thing with 72B1, How declarer could know he would benefit? It's for this reasons, I ask you.... Amicalement PH.L. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 08:18:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:18:10 +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 IAA17818 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:18:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-236.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.236]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA00275 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:17:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004701bf4678$b912cc60$ec84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:18:08 -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 -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, December 12, 1999 3:40 PM Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods >Marvin L. French wrote: > >>All these cheating methods are the subject of unenforced ACBL >>regulations, and are much more deserving of caustic comments than >>opening with an announced 1 HCP less than an "approved" minimum. >>Civil disobedience for the purpose of changing unjust laws is >>accepted more readily on this side of the ocean, evidently. > > Civil disobedience often is done at disadvantage to the doer: I am >talking specifically of a player who will do something that he knows >law-abiding people will not, such as dumping tea in Boston Harbour? (Or for that matter refusing to move to the back of the bus?) We do seem to have a tradition of that over here. and *knows* he is gaining an advantage over >them, and claims it as a form of protest. > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > Emails received on birthday: > Quango 22 Nanki Poo 15 David 8 [+3 late] Yet I agree with Kojak...there are many less confrontational approaches that offer better hope of success. Only when and if they have been fairly tried and have failed would Wally's approach rise above the level of improper action to that of civil disobedience IMO. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 08:19:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:19:36 +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 IAA17832 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:19:21 +1100 (EST) From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id NAA06372 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:19:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA23353; 14 Dec 99 13:18:51 -0800 Date: 14 Dec 99 13:17:00 -0800 Message-Id: <199912141318.AA23353@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: The Impact of the Laws on Regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > +=+ As to bridge law, I refer to a letter from Kaplan > that I have on file, if I dig for it. As closely as I recall > it says: "(In regulating conventions) if a sponsoring > organisation wishes to require that any player who > has an agreement to use the 'wizard' convention > must wear a conical yellow hat it is empowered to > do so. We may think the regulation ridiculous but > it is not unlawful under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > The power to regulate conventions has no restrictions." > Until Law 40D is altered it gives unlimited powers to > regulating authorities. You may not like it, but this is > how it is. Finally, a definition that I can believe (even if not agree with). To remove this somewhat from the on-going 'a king less than an average hand' debate, let me re-phrase the question thusly: If I and the rest of my weak (but not super-weak) NT cabal gained control of the ACBL's Conventions and Competitions Committee, it would be *within the Law* (not necessarily wise, nor ethical, but *legal*) to mandate that conventions could be played over 12-14 HCP 1NT openers, but that no conventions were allowed over 15-17 HCP 1NT openers -- or, similarly, that defensive conventions were and were not allowed depending only on the strength of the 1NT opener. This is what I have interpreted the prior discussion as meaning. It certainly is in accord with the regulations currently in place -- regulations I have objected to because I thought those regulations were in contravention of the Laws. There are many ways to read the phrase in Law 40D that restricts the right of ZOs to regulate one-level openings; the libertarian view that I have espoused is wide-ranging and carried the 'equal protection under the laws' theme that has been mentioned by others. But it is reasonable -- though, IMO, wrong -- to read this as protecting only the initial one-level action; ZOs may then use their right to regulate bidding conventions to make such protecteed calls virtually useless in a bridge sense, by forbidding conventional follow-ups (as the ACBL has done). Is this the position of the WBFLC? I know that those members of the WBFLC who post to BLML do so in their capacity as individuals and not in their WBFLC capacity; their comments are valued even if unofficial. (So, too -- I had thought it went without saying, until I read a thread on r.g.b -- are the opinions of all the other BLML contributors.) If, indeed, Law 40D *only* provides protection to *non-conventional calls at the one level* (with hands greater than 'a king or more below average strength'), then it is probably time to trot out -- once again -- the suggestion that, according to the Laws, 99-44/100% of all 'natural' calls are, in fact, conventional. Then the ACBL would be able to give us the Correct Bidding Lessons we so badly need. (Quite obviously, I am not in favor of that. But I am also *not* in favor of having the FLB interpreted in both an inclusive and an exclusive fashion -- it seems to me that consistency is appropriate. One should not argue *both* that 'only those forms of information mentioned in the Laws as authorized can be authorized information' and 'there are non-conventional calls that fit the strict definition of "convention" given in Chapter I, but common sense tells us that they are not really conventional'). -- Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) Los Gatos, California {ACBL District 21} "The people must construe according to their wits; this court must construe according to the Law." (Sir Thomas More in _A Man For All Seasons_; quoted from memory, and thus probably paraphrased) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 08:53:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:52:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17966 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:52:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from idefix (cph20.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.20]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA23089 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:51:47 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199912142151.WAA23089@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:52:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Philippe wrote: > South is playing 7S. > Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 > South: K 9 8 2 > > South does not have trick to lose in the other colours. > First trick is won by South with AC. B U T South calls the AS from > dummy as attack for 2nd trick. In same time, dummy says " you have to > play from your hand, partner". TD is required. TD explains: " Either > defender may accept the lead" I think the TD got it wrong. Dummy is exercising his right according to L42B2 to prevent declarer's irregularity. As I read "In the same time", Dummy is in time - no LOOT has been made, the defenders don't have the right to accept it, and declarer must lead from his own hand. I know I am not answering your question. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 09:03:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:03:21 +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 JAA18028 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:03:13 +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 RAA07159 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:03:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA01370 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:03:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:03:11 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912142203.RAA01370@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: LORMANT Philippe > Same thing with 72B1, How declarer could know he would benefit? Yes, this is almost the right question. A better phrasing would be could have known he was _likely_ to benefit. We don't need certainty. If declarer does something like glare intently at West and say "I bet you have the queen of spades, don't you?" I think most of us can see how that might help declarer. Of course it isn't guaranteed of success, but at least against average players, seeing West's reaction probably improves the odds by quite a lot. I think most of us would be inclined to adjust the score if declarer had done something like this and succeeded. On the other hand, if declarer commits a random infraction, for which there happens to be no significant penalty, and then subsequently guesses spades correctly, it would never occur to anyone to adjust. So which case do we have here? It's a matter of bridge judgment. Declarer's and opponents' skill levels would certainly be factors, as would additional information about the deal. My first reaction was very likely no adjustment, but the more I think about it, the less certain I am. Declarer's infraction (leading from the wrong hand) certainly put him in position to learn something about the deal from the opponents' reactions. Given all the facts, could he reasonably have expected to gain from the infraction? He gives up the possibility of finessing through West, but maybe that's not a significant loss. On the other hand, do we adjust the score every time declarer leads from the wrong hand and subsequently makes a correct guess? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 09:24:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:24:06 +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 JAA18129 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:23:58 +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 RAA08141 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:23:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA01382 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:23:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:23:54 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912142223.RAA01382@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The Impact of the Laws on Regulations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: FARLEY_WALLY@tandem.com > it would be *within the Law* (not necessarily wise, nor ethical, but > *legal*) to mandate that conventions could be played over 12-14 HCP > 1NT openers, but that no conventions were allowed over 15-17 HCP Yes, that's how I read L40D. > But it is reasonable -- though, IMO, wrong -- > to read this as protecting only the initial one-level action; In general, non-conventional actions _at any level_ cannot be regulated. The exceptions, which can be regulated if the ZO opts to do so, are light initial actions at the one level. All other non-conventional actions are protected. The ACBL has chosen to regulate light opening bids but not overcalls. > ZOs may > then use their right to regulate bidding conventions to make such > protecteed calls virtually useless in a bridge sense, by forbidding > conventional follow-ups (as the ACBL has done). Yes. You might like to use wide-range weak two-bids in third seat, accepting that you cannot use conventions after that, but in many other cases the _effect_ of the convention regulations is to make some protected, non-conventional action useless. > then it is probably time to > trot out -- once again -- the suggestion that, according to the Laws, > 99-44/100% of all 'natural' calls are, in fact, conventional. Then > the ACBL would be able to give us the Correct Bidding Lessons we so > badly need. The definition of convention is another whole can of worms. _In practice_, the definition is that a convention is whatever an SO says it is. So the L40D "protection" is very small, but maybe it's not quite zero. I don't think you would like the effect if the ACBL adopted a literal interpretation of the FLB's definition of convention. Whatever the WBF may think, if you want to change things in the ACBL, you will have to deal with ACBL politics. I cannot imagine outside influence having much effect. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 09:28:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:28:36 +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 JAA18151 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:28:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveiep.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.217]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA03931 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:28:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:25:45 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss In-Reply-To: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:46 AM 12/14/99 EST, Kojak wrote: > Forgive my imprecise use of language. I find that these "free" >decisions somehow materialize mostly when hesitating partner has additional >values for the "pass.". An analogy is the husband/wife partnership who is >never out of tempo, but also never wrong in 1S - 2S - 3S (?do I bid 4 or >not?) Perish the thought that there might be some subliminal communication - >but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. I >think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. I think, more to the point, that they are irrelevant _as a matter of law_. L16 instructs us to weigh the issues of LA and suggestion against relatively objective standards. Thus the question of what the player in question would or would not have done (and not incidentally, our opinion of his credibility) never needs to be broached. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 09:51:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:51:08 +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 JAA18226 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:51:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveiep.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.217]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA26548 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:50:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991214174817.007761dc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:48:17 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods In-Reply-To: <000601bf4586$b6130fe0$b5a893c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:47 PM 12/13/99 -0000, Grattan wrote: >+=+ As to bridge law, I refer to a letter from Kaplan >that I have on file, if I dig for it. As closely as I recall >it says: "(In regulating conventions) if a sponsoring >organisation wishes to require that any player who >has an agreement to use the 'wizard' convention >must wear a conical yellow hat it is empowered to >do so. We may think the regulation ridiculous but >it is not unlawful under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. >The power to regulate conventions has no restrictions." >Until Law 40D is altered it gives unlimited powers to >regulating authorities. You may not like it, but this is >how it is. Interesting how Mr. Kaplan's views are sometimes cited as authoritative and at other times vilified. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 09:52:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:52:53 +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 JAA18255 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:52:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 23545 invoked by uid 65534); 14 Dec 1999 22:52:01 -0000 Message-ID: <19991214225201.23544.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.160] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <199912141917.OAA01122@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:52:01 -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 would believe that such problems would go away if declarer or dummy by making an illegal play became subject to penalty cards. Declarer's PC might be like a defender's PC; and dummy's PC might last for a limited time, such as the next four cards played, whether to the current trick or the next. I would also believe that the general standard of declarer play will coincidentally improve at a faster rate- not all that bad a price to pay, I think. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 1:17 PM Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? > > LORMANT Philippe wrote: > > > South is playing 7S. > > > Spades are like this: Dummy: A J 10 3 > > > South: K 9 8 2 > (I think 'V' was the valet, not the vrouw.) > > > From: Konrad Ciborowski > > L16: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information > > from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. > > To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an > > infraction of law. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The fact that West chooses to accept the LOOT is not an information > > obtained from legal call or play. > > But that doesn't mean it is unauthorized. There is no way the list in > L16 can be considered a complete list of AI. Generally, operation of > law is considered AI for all players. > > > L16C2 > > One might argue that this Law doesn't apply as there is no > > "withdrawn action" here. > > Yes, I for one would argue precisely that. > > > I hope all BLMLers will share my opinion. If we let declarer > > "find" the Qx in West's hand it would mean we will give declarer > > the possibility to do the equivalent of putting the cards to > > the duplicate board without saying a word and checking who will > > protest. > > Well, that's an interesting maneuver, too. > > I'd suggest what we are looking for is L72B1. (Isn't it amazing how > widely it applies? How did we ever get along without it?) > > However, I don't think the conditions of L72B1 are met in the original > case. How could declarer know he would benefit? If West has Qxx, he > will accept the A and declarer is cooked. Even with the actual > holding, East could accept the lead, or West could say nothing, letting > declarer guess wrong. But this is bridge judgment, and against some > players, I suppose declarer's maneuver could be beneficial. If you > think so in the actual case, then by all means adjust the score. > > In Konrad's example -- cards back in the board with no statement -- I > agree that L70E is enough, but we would have L72B1 for similar types > of irregularities where there is no specific law. > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 09:54:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:45:48 +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 JAA18205 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:45:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveiep.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.217]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA14972 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:45:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991214174256.00771300@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:42:56 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? In-Reply-To: <38564C93.1A5A@wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:56 PM 12/14/99 +0100, you wrote: >South is playing 7S. > Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 > South: K 9 8 2 > > South does not have trick to lose in the other colours. > First trick is won by South with AC. B U T South calls the AS from > dummy as attack for 2nd trick. In same time, dummy says " you have to > play from your hand, partner". TD is required. TD explains: " Either > defender may accept the lead" and West says " OK, I accept". > Now, Declarer thinks " probably, if W accepts he has the Queen " and > after Ace, he plays KS and " eats" the QS 2nd in the West hand! > > What is your ruling? General case: Do you think that an option by no > offending side may become an UI for offending side? In a sense, the problem of whether it is UI or not is unimportant, because when we begin to analyze what is suggested by the information, it becomes apparent that the information is fundamentally useless. If West's acceptance really does suggest the presence of the Q, then he shouldn't have done so, and then South really _would_ have known that he had the Q, so perhaps West was right to have accepted... In other words, the symmetry of the situation provides for a sort of infinte regress in which the location of the Q is both indicated and contra-indicated. If we take the view that South's line is illegal, then we are effectively saying that he cannot be allowed to pick up the suit regardless of the location of the Q (unless singleton, of course) and regardless of which defender accepted the lead. And that is far too harsh a penalty for South's offense. The Laws provide a reasonable penalty, which can be exercised or not at the defenders' option. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 09:56:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:56:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18282 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:56:17 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id d.0.6c2b0019 (3735); Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:55:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.6c2b0019.258824e5@aol.com> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:55:33 EST Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss 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 12/14/99 5:29:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: > I think, more to the point, that they are irrelevant _as a matter of law_. > L16 instructs us to weigh the issues of LA and suggestion against > relatively objective standards. Thus the question of what the player in > question would or would not have done (and not incidentally, our opinion of > his credibility) never needs to be broached. > > Mike Dennis This presupposes that any comments made by a player are automatically subjective as opposed to objective. If you wish to avioid questioning credibility, truthfulness, honesty, and geting a feel for the player's objectivity, that's your bag, not mine. It is sometimes very refreshing to find that there are players out there who speak the truth without reservation. Try it, you'll like it! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 10:01:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:01:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18320 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:01:06 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.0.e8ebf32 (3735); Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:00:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.e8ebf32.25882604@aol.com> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:00:20 EST Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? To: axman22@hotmail.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 12/14/99 5:54:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, axman22@hotmail.com writes: > I would believe that such problems would go away if declarer or dummy by > making an illegal play became subject to penalty cards. Declarer's PC might > be like a defender's PC; and dummy's PC might last for a limited time, such > as the next four cards played, whether to the current trick or the next. I > would also believe that the general standard of declarer play will > coincidentally improve at a faster rate- not all that bad a price to pay, I > think. > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > An interesting thought. Would you like to put it into the form of an officail request for LC action? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 10:53:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:59:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18308 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:59:39 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id d.0.7883de99 (3735); Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:58:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.7883de99.258825ad@aol.com> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:58:53 EST Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods 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 12/14/99 5:52:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: > Interesting how Mr. Kaplan's views are sometimes cited as authoritative and > at other times vilified. > > Mike Dennis > Is there some criteria which makes them one or the other at all times? I guess I missed it. Having been professionally close to Edgar for many years, I most admired his humanity, which included being authoritative at times, and devious at other times. I could quote chapter and verse and cite numerous examples, but to no good purpose. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 10:56:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:56:53 +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 KAA18533 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:56:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pc101.krakow.ppp.tpnet.pl [212.160.4.101]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18228 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:57:03 +0100 Message-ID: <3856D905.C2D07C3C@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:55:49 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: <199912141917.OAA01122@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3856B08D.745A@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk LORMANT Philippe wrote: > How declarer could know he would benefit? > It's for this reasons, I ask you.... > > Amicalement > PH.L. He could. He just improves his chances. Maybe he will learn nothing but maybe he will. I don't buy a story about a random infraction (sorry, Steve). I firmly believe that declarer had no dirty intentions when leading from the wrong hand and I equally firmly believe that the Law should react in this type of situation - this has been discussed before on this list. Here is another "how a player could know he could benefit" case. It was discussed among Polish TDs a couple of years ago. I find it somewhat similar: AJ1054 - K983 Let us suppose this is the trump suit, spades, for instance. Declarer plays the king. All follow. Then a small spade. South shows out. A second later he says: "Sorry, I have a spade". Declarer puts the Ace and... it turns out the South started with Qxx. South says it was a "momentary laps of reason". The conclusion reached by some top Polish TDs was: we believe South that he had no intention of misleading declarer but we don't allow him to score a trick for the spade queen. We don't buy a "random infraction" story. Well, I believe that those cases are alike. As declarer I'd have no problem in accepting one down in 7S. As I said IM(H)O the wording of the L16C2 is flawed. As a TD I'd apply L12A1. Konrad Ciborowski I From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 11:08:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:08:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe29.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA18578 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:08:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 22970 invoked by uid 65534); 15 Dec 1999 00:08:06 -0000 Message-ID: <19991215000806.22969.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.160] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <0.e8ebf32.25882604@aol.com> Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:08:15 -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: To: ; Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 5:00 PM Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? > In a message dated 12/14/99 5:54:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, > axman22@hotmail.com writes: > > > I would believe that such problems would go away if declarer or dummy by > > making an illegal play became subject to penalty cards. Declarer's PC > might > > be like a defender's PC; and dummy's PC might last for a limited time, such > > as the next four cards played, whether to the current trick or the next. I > > would also believe that the general standard of declarer play will > > coincidentally improve at a faster rate- not all that bad a price to pay, > I > > think. > > > > Roger Pewick > > Houston, Texas > > > > An interesting thought. Would you like to put it into the form of an > officail request for LC action? Kojak Over the past year I have spent perhaps 500 hours framing words toward this effect and believe that those words mean well and say well. I do have reason to believe that this issue has tentacles of unclear length and have spent untold hours reflecting on the bigger picture. To date I feel that I have made progress, but am not yet satisfied that I have found good answers. As for offering a proposal I do not know the procedures involved. I see many tasks involved. I believe that best efforts need the views from many angles to gain confidence that the direction taken is the best one. To that end it would be worthwhile to receive the understanding of the LC as to the issues that they see are relevant so that they would be adequately addressed. And there is the task of testing and observing the effect against all comers. It is quite difficult to anticipate that the search is complete when the vantage point is just one hilltop. In any event, I do see such a change beneficial in the form of better leveling the playing field that the 'same' rules apply to the side that can better coordinate its action as their opponents. If the LC should like to consider words I have framed I would be happy to suggest. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 12:02:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:58:43 +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 JAA18299 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:58:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveiep.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.217]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA28677 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:58:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991214175549.00760950@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:55:49 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Judgement on the convention card In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991215014355.0083ca90@pop.singnet.com.sg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:43 AM 12/15/99 +0800, Derrick wrote: >Our bidding is not just based blindly on HCP. Other judgement factors >taken into account include: distribution, location and type of honours, >ruffing values, long suits, suit quality (including intermediates), >implications of partner’s prior bidding (including prior passes, the degree >of fit and strength promised), implications of opponents’ bidding, losing >trick count and law of total tricks. > >Thus when the systemic convention card states for example X HCP or >invitational or maximum, it means a hand that in our judgement is >equivalent in strength to X HCP or invitational or maximum. > Sadly, I think it is a prudent comment to make. It should be "just bridge", and reasonable-minded TD's and AC's will recognize and apply the same type of thinking to their analyses, but that doesn't mean that everyone will. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 12:18:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:18:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18790 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:18:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:18:09 -0800 Message-ID: <009c01bf469a$3ea87ac0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Two passes out of turn? Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:18:04 -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 A club TD asked me what she should have done when South passed out of rotation, and dealer North, perhaps not noticing the pass, also passed. I said I had no idea, but would ask the BLML gurus. So? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 12:43:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:43:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18898 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:43:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:42:58 -0800 Message-ID: <00bf01bf469d$b60edb60$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004701bf4678$b912cc60$ec84d9ce@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:39:56 -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 Craig Senior wrote: > Yet I agree with Kojak...there are many less confrontational approaches that > offer better hope of success. Only when and if they have been fairly tried > and have failed would Wally's approach rise above the level of improper > action to that of civil disobedience IMO. Yes, civil disobedience should be a last resort. I hope Wally will get the permission of the opponents for his civil disobedience, and then only in one-on-one team events. That should satisfy those who believe that opening a 9-12 HCP 1NT, and using Stayman afterwards, is gaining an advantage not available to others. IMO, it is voluntarily putting one's side at a *disadvantage* to open 1NT with that range against experienced pairs, but that is a side issue. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 12:48:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:48:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18936 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:48:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:48:39 -0800 Message-ID: <00c801bf469e$818de380$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912141318.AA23353@gateway.tandem.com> Subject: Re: The Impact of the Laws on Regulations Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:48:14 -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: > There are many ways to read the phrase > in Law 40D that restricts the right of ZOs to regulate one-level > openings; the libertarian view that I have espoused is wide-ranging > and carried the 'equal protection under the laws' theme that has been > mentioned by others. But it is reasonable -- though, IMO, wrong -- > to read this as protecting only the initial one-level action; ZOs may > then use their right to regulate bidding conventions to make such > protected calls virtually useless in a bridge sense, by forbidding > conventional follow-ups (as the ACBL has done). > Which constitutes a regulation of calls that are not conventions, a right not granted to ZOs by the Laws, except for ultra-light one-level initial actions. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 12:53:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:53:00 +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 MAA18954 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:52:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from pd9s04a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.100.218] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11y3bw-0002bs-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:52:12 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:56:03 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf469f$8b133760$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 1:31 AM Subject: Two passes out of turn? >A club TD asked me what she should have done when South passed out >of rotation, and dealer North, perhaps not noticing the pass, also >passed. > >I said I had no idea, but would ask the BLML gurus. At the risk of being called a guru I would suggest (nicely) that "she" should RTFLB. Law 28B Call by Correct Player Cancelling Call Out of Rotation A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it was to call, before a penalty has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent; making such a call forfeits the right to penalise the call out of rotation, and the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16C2 applies. WTP? Anne > >So? > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 12:53:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:43:28 +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 MAA18905 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:43:21 +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 11y3TE-000LSh-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:43:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:42:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? In-Reply-To: <009c01bf469a$3ea87ac0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <009c01bf469a$3ea87ac0$d5075e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >A club TD asked me what she should have done when South passed out >of rotation, and dealer North, perhaps not noticing the pass, also >passed. > >I said I had no idea, but would ask the BLML gurus. > >So? > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > The first pass has the applicable Law applied. If accepted, we then deal with the 2nd POOT. If not accepted, the 2nd pass is withdrawn and the original opener has UI. I think this makes most sense, but there are other ways to deal with 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 Wed Dec 15 12:58:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:58:43 +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 MAA18990 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:58:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from p0cs01a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.113.13] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11y3hV-0002rd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:57:58 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 02:01:49 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf46a0$59858ee0$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 OOOps. I have just RTFLB again. I was wrong. Partner was not an opponent. I knew I was not a guru ! I now know WTP. I'm not sure of the answer yet tho' Anne -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 1:31 AM Subject: Two passes out of turn? >A club TD asked me what she should have done when South passed out >of rotation, and dealer North, perhaps not noticing the pass, also >passed. > >I said I had no idea, but would ask the BLML gurus. > >So? > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 13:18:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:18:39 +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 NAA19080 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:18:30 +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 11y41C-000Dqv-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 02:18:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 23:46:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: <38564C93.1A5A@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <38564C93.1A5A@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk LORMANT Philippe wrote: >South is playing 7S. > Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 > South: K 9 8 2 > > South does not have trick to lose in the other colours. > First trick is won by South with AC. B U T South calls the AS from > dummy as attack for 2nd trick. In same time, dummy says " you have to > play from your hand, partner". TD is required. TD explains: " Either > defender may accept the lead" and West says " OK, I accept". > Now, Declarer thinks " probably, if W accepts he has the Queen " and > after Ace, he plays KS and " eats" the QS 2nd in the West hand! > > What is your ruling? General case: Do you think that an option by no > offending side may become an UI for offending side? My ruling is that there is no reason to adjust. I am confident that rulings by the TD and options taken by the NOs are AI for the offending side. I know that I cannot immediately come up with a Law, but unfortunately it has been proved before that there are matters which are AI which are not covered by the description in L16 [how you are doing in the session is clearly allowed to be part of oyur decision-making process]. > Sorry for my very poor English language. Plus bon que mon francais! ------- Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >L16: >------------------------------------------------------------------- >Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information >from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. >To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an >infraction of law. >------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The fact that West chooses to accept the LOOT is not an information >obtained from legal call or play. No, but regrettably the bit in L16 does not cover everything that is legal. >L16C2 >------------------------------------------------------------------- >For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn >action and from withdrawn actions of the non offending side is >unauthorized. A player of the offending side may not choose from among >logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been >suggested over another by the unauthorized information. >------------------------------------------------------------------- > One might argue that this Law doesn't apply as there is no >"withdrawn action" here. I'd vote it does; IM(H)O the wording is >flawed but the interpretation that all information based on the >choice the NOs made is UI, is a sensible one. Marvin will tell you how much I am worried about the term "tantamount" and while you do not use it I am sure the effect is the same. It is simple: what was the withdrawn action by the NOs? There isn't one. So L16C does not apply. You could argue that his SA was withdrawn, and then played, but that does not affect it because it is not the consequence of that play that we are considering. >So in this particular case I rule 7S= only if it is East who holds >the Q of S (playing from the top is irrational; things would be >different had declarer had nine trumps; in that case I would >let declarer take all tricks only if somebody held the queen >singleton or _Eest_ held the Qx). > >I hope all BLMLers will share my opinion. If we let declarer >"find" the Qx in West's hand it would mean we will give declarer >the possibility to do the equivalent of putting the cards to >the duplicate board without saying a word and checking who will >protest. Total rubbish. Why argue by taking a totally different case with no similarity whatever? Putting the cards away without comment is illegal, and we hit him with L72B1 and anything else we feel like [L70A, perhaps]. The current situation is legal, and comparing a known illegal act with a legal one is not a good idea. > The latter is illegal and the TD will adjust according >to the L70E. I see no reason why declarer should benefit from >his irregularity. Declarer is not benefiting from his irregularity. He is playing the hand to best effect thereafter, as he is entitled to do. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 13:55:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:29:09 +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 NAA19128 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:29:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from borodin (borodin.chem.utas.edu.au [131.217.55.112]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA28993 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:28:50 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991215133336.0094a2e0@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:33:36 +1100 To: "BLML" From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? In-Reply-To: <01bf469f$8b133760$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:56 15/12/99 -0000, Anne Jones wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Marvin L. French >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 1:31 AM >Subject: Two passes out of turn? > > >>A club TD asked me what she should have done when South passed out >>of rotation, and dealer North, perhaps not noticing the pass, also >>passed. >> >>I said I had no idea, but would ask the BLML gurus. > >At the risk of being called a guru I would suggest (nicely) that "she" >should >RTFLB. >Law 28B >Call by Correct Player Cancelling Call Out of Rotation >A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it >was to call, before a penalty has been assessed for a call out of rotation >by an opponent; making such a call forfeits the right to penalise the call >out of rotation, and the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not >called at that turn, but Law 16C2 applies. >WTP? The problem is the first call out of rotation was not made "by an opponent" so this law as written does not apply. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 14:00:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:35:43 +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 MAA18852 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:35:28 +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 11y3LT-000PUc-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:35:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:28:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Martin Sinot writes >masterit wrote: > >>here's one that caused a fair amount of page-turning at my clubs pairs >>championship last night. >> >>table a: defender points out to declarer in the middle of play that >>there is a face-down card on the floor by his chair. declarer picks it >>up and "restores" it to his hand. at the end of play he finds that he >>now has fourteen cards. he has tried to do something with the 14 card >>suit which didn't work, giving him well below average. >> >>table b: has played the board with 51 cards and due to the fact that the >>missing card created a void, bid to a slam, claiming part way through, >>and getting an outright top. >> >>the laws dont seem to allow for a 53 card pack.....ideas? >> >>larry Law 1. Duplicate Contract Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards ... We were not playing Duplicate Contract Bridge chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 14:59:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:35:43 +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 MAA18851 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:35:27 +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 11y3LU-000Kji-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:35:12 +0000 Message-ID: <0EkEjmA48uV4EwXs@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:30:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? In-Reply-To: <38564C93.1A5A@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <38564C93.1A5A@wanadoo.fr>, LORMANT Philippe writes >South is playing 7S. > Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 > South: K 9 8 2 > > South does not have trick to lose in the other colours. > First trick is won by South with AC. B U T South calls the AS from > dummy as attack for 2nd trick. In same time, dummy says " you have to > play from your hand, partner". TD is required. TD explains: " Either > defender may accept the lead" and West says " OK, I accept". > Now, Declarer thinks " probably, if W accepts he has the Queen " and > after Ace, he plays KS and " eats" the QS 2nd in the West hand! > > What is your ruling? General case: Do you think that an option by no > offending side may become an UI for offending side? Result stands. West got it wrong. chs john > > Sorry for my very poor English language. > Pas de probleme > Amicalement > Philippe -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 15:01:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:01:59 +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 PAA19504 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:01:52 +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 11y5dB-000LUC-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 04:01:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:19:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? References: <01bf469f$8b133760$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf469f$8b133760$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >From: Marvin L. French >>A club TD asked me what she should have done when South passed out >>of rotation, and dealer North, perhaps not noticing the pass, also >>passed. >> >>I said I had no idea, but would ask the BLML gurus. >At the risk of being called a guru I would suggest (nicely) that "she" >should >RTFLB. >Law 28B >Call by Correct Player Cancelling Call Out of Rotation >A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it >was to call, before a penalty has been assessed for a call out of rotation >by an opponent; making such a call forfeits the right to penalise the call ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >out of rotation, and the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not >called at that turn, but Law 16C2 applies. >WTP? Sorry, it does not apply when your pd has made the POOT. I think JohnP's answer is right. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 15 15:02:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:02:05 +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 PAA19503 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:01:52 +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 11y5dB-000Oku-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 04:01:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:11:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss References: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@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 09:46 AM 12/14/99 EST, Kojak wrote: >> Forgive my imprecise use of language. I find that these "free" >>decisions somehow materialize mostly when hesitating partner has additional >>values for the "pass.". An analogy is the husband/wife partnership who is >>never out of tempo, but also never wrong in 1S - 2S - 3S (?do I bid 4 or >>not?) Perish the thought that there might be some subliminal >communication - >>but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. I >>think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. > >I think, more to the point, that they are irrelevant _as a matter of law_. >L16 instructs us to weigh the issues of LA and suggestion against >relatively objective standards. Thus the question of what the player in >question would or would not have done (and not incidentally, our opinion of >his credibility) never needs to be broached. It seems difficult to get anywhere if you are going to ignore self- serving statements. Actually, from most of what I have read there seems a growing idea to ignore self-serving statements from offenders while accepting them from NOs. Curious. BTW, how are you going to find out players' methods if you will not listen when they tell 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 Wed Dec 15 15:09:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:09:37 +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 PAA19542 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:09:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh3l.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.117]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA32253 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 23:09:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991214230636.00771970@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 23:06:36 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss In-Reply-To: <0.6c2b0019.258824e5@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:55 PM 12/14/99 EST, Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 12/14/99 5:29:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, >msd@mindspring.com writes: > >> I think, more to the point, that they are irrelevant _as a matter of law_. >> L16 instructs us to weigh the issues of LA and suggestion against >> relatively objective standards. Thus the question of what the player in >> question would or would not have done (and not incidentally, our opinion of >> his credibility) never needs to be broached. >> >> Mike Dennis > >This presupposes that any comments made by a player are automatically >subjective as opposed to objective. If you wish to avioid questioning >credibility, truthfulness, honesty, and geting a feel for the player's >objectivity, that's your bag, not mine. I wish primarily to adhere to the requirements of the Laws, which instruct us to rule in these cases without consideration of the truthfulness of "I would have always bid XXX anyway" statements. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 15:23:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:23:04 +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 PAA19579 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:22:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from king.halcyon.com (bbo@king.halcyon.com [206.63.63.10]) by smtp10.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA29525; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:22:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA14472; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:22:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:22:47 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Jens & Bodil cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? In-Reply-To: <199912142151.WAA23089@isa.dknet.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Jens & Bodil wrote: > > South is playing 7S. > > Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 > > South: K 9 8 2 > > > > B U T South calls the AS from > > dummy as attack for 2nd trick. > > I think the TD got it wrong. Dummy is exercising his right > according to L42B2 to prevent declarer's irregularity. As I read "In > the same time", Dummy is in time - no LOOT has been made. But he called AS! How can that not be a lead out of turn, either if it was before dummy's warning or after. Is there a separate rule for simultaneous play and warning? R. B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 15:30:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:30:31 +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 PAA19613 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:30:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from king.halcyon.com (bbo@king.halcyon.com [206.63.63.10]) by smtp10.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA29677; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:30:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by king.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA14687; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:30:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:30:13 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Steve Willner cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? In-Reply-To: <199912142203.RAA01370@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Steve Willner wrote: > Declarer's infraction (leading from > the wrong hand) certainly put him in position to learn something about > the deal from the opponents' reactions. Given all the facts, could he > reasonably have expected to gain from the infraction? > > On the other hand, do we adjust the score every time declarer leads > from the wrong hand and subsequently makes a correct guess? If declarer innocently led the SA, he was doubtless planning on finessing on the next lead, probably. And if he led it with the thought of gaining by a reaction, he should be awarded what he was going to get if he _had_ led from dummy inadvertently - down one. R. B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 15:42:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:35:45 +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 MAA18853 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:35:28 +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 11y3LV-000Ale-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:35:15 +0000 Message-ID: <0koErpAK$uV4Ew1j@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:32:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? In-Reply-To: <199912142151.WAA23089@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199912142151.WAA23089@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >Philippe wrote: > >> South is playing 7S. >> Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 >> South: K 9 8 2 >> >> South does not have trick to lose in the other colours. >> First trick is won by South with AC. B U T South calls the AS from >> dummy as attack for 2nd trick. In same time, dummy says " you have to >> play from your hand, partner". TD is required. TD explains: " Either >> defender may accept the lead" The TD got it right. Law 53A. The lead *was* made. My only concern is if the offenders were trying an Alcatraz coup. chs john. > >I think the TD got it wrong. Dummy is exercising his right >according to L42B2 to prevent declarer's irregularity. As I read "In >the same time", Dummy is in time - no LOOT has been made, the >defenders don't have the right to accept it, and declarer must lead >from his own hand. > >I know I am not answering your question. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 15:44:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:35:42 +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 MAA18849 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:35:26 +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 11y3LT-000BY5-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:35:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:24:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 09:46 AM 12/14/99 EST, Kojak wrote: >> Forgive my imprecise use of language. I find that these "free" >>decisions somehow materialize mostly when hesitating partner has additional >>values for the "pass.". An analogy is the husband/wife partnership who is >>never out of tempo, but also never wrong in 1S - 2S - 3S (?do I bid 4 or >>not?) Perish the thought that there might be some subliminal >communication - >>but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. I >>think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. > >I think, more to the point, that they are irrelevant _as a matter of law_. >L16 instructs us to weigh the issues of LA and suggestion against >relatively objective standards. Thus the question of what the player in >question would or would not have done (and not incidentally, our opinion of >his credibility) never needs to be broached. > >Mike Dennis In the UK one is instructed to approach it from the point of view of what a player of this class in this field *would have done*. In the uk he'd bid 4H. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 16:17:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:17:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe36.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA19819 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:17:01 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 45799 invoked by uid 65534); 15 Dec 1999 05:16:22 -0000 Message-ID: <19991215051622.45798.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.15.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <009c01bf469a$3ea87ac0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 23:16:33 -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 am not sure, but as the law is written it appears that in such a case as this by condoning one call it [L29A] leaves the other call still subject to penalty. Of course this means that by condoning one call you have the situation where the auction then proceeds yet is interrupted to rule on the other infraction. Imo this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. It seems to me that any call by an opponent ought forfeit the right to penalize, not just by LHO. Otoh, I think that this is only a partial fix, but probably satisfactory given the present wording of the laws. Even so it seems right to approach the infractions in LIFO order. By not condoning the first call by third hand [FIFO] the auction reverts to first hand whose call is no longer OOT, thereby preventing the option of penalizing it since it was made subsequent to the original POOT. And this does not seem right. To that end taking the infractions in LIFO, assuming rejection, first hand pass is cancelled and must pass at his next turn and the auction reverts to first hand. The original POOT is still outstanding, it being rejected is cancelled and must pass at his next turn the auction reverting to first hand. First hand must call with his enforced pass. But, if the original POOT is condoned then ‘dealer’ becomes ‘third hand’ and has the enforced pass. All this rigmarole looks like a shell game, but investigate instead the effect of POOT followed by a bid by dealer. If the pass is condoned the bid becomes a call at RHO’s turn which has options which soften the penalty. If the pass is not condoned third hand must pass at his next turn, the auction reverts to the dealer who is the rightful turn, so how can LHO have any options? Conversely at LIFO, dealer has ‘bid at his RHO’s turn’. Second hand has options and if rejected the auction reverts to dealer [himself] but third hand pass is still OOT if [a] is condoned then he must repeat his bid if RHO passes w/o penalty or select a call which bars partner if fourth hand bids or [b] if not condoned the situation arises where RHO is not in a position to call before he does [and this appears to be an anomaly –it seems right to require repeating his call]- and third hand has an enforced pass Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 7:18 PM Subject: Two passes out of turn? > A club TD asked me what she should have done when South passed out > of rotation, and dealer North, perhaps not noticing the pass, also > passed. > > I said I had no idea, but would ask the BLML gurus. > > So? > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 16:31:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:35:44 +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 MAA18850 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:35:27 +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 11y3LR-000BY9-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:35:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:22:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss In-Reply-To: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 12/14/99 8:45:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, >axman22@hotmail.com writes: > >> Why should a player, or adjudicator, consider that handcuffs are in place if >> no UI is/was detected/available when opener in fact has undisclosed values? >> I could realize that without such extras that there would likely be no >> question of freedom of movment, but for freedom I would consider it a bit >> extreme a condtion. >> >> Roger Pewick >> Houston, Texas > > Forgive my imprecise use of language. I find that these "free" >decisions somehow materialize mostly when hesitating partner has additional >values for the "pass.". An analogy is the husband/wife partnership who is >never out of tempo, but also never wrong in 1S - 2S - 3S (?do I bid 4 or >not?) Perish the thought that there might be some subliminal communication - >but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. I >think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. > Kojak I think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not being self-serving. You have pre-empted the question. Our man was _always bidding 4_. As I said the US position is more extreme than the uk one, and I'd not be surprised by a US decision to rule 3H to be a LA. Cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 16:52:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:52:46 +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 QAA19914 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:52:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial70.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.70]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA22300 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:52:24 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199912040132.RAA19125@josephine.okbridge.com> References: <199912040132.RAA19125@josephine.okbridge.com> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:49:04 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: The OKbridge Spectator - December 1999 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm about to send this off to the editor of the The OKbridge Spectator. If anyone has any suggestions for improvement I'd welcome them. The letter to which I am objecting should be available to okbridge members at http://www.okbridge.com/member/spectator/index.html I don't think you need to read the original to get my point, though. - AW Dear Editor, I must take extreme exception to Pitbull's letter in the December 1999 Spectator. The practice he recommends after receiving unauthorized information, "Make the call you were planning to make had partner acted in tempo", is contrary to bridge law. By printing his letter with no other comment you do a disservice to your readers. I can do no better than to quote the relevant law here: >LAW 16 - UNAUTHORISED INFORMATION > >Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information >from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base >a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction >of law. >A. Extraneous Information from Partner >After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information >that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a >question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, >unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism >or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical >alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested >over another by the extraneous information. In practice this means not only that one may not be allowed to carry out one's original plan, but also that one must be attentive to partner's tempo, in order to comply with one's legal obligations! It is true that a hesitation by partner does not automatically bar us, for a variety of reasons. It does bar us in certain situations, however. Pitbull's suggestion that partner could use such a hesitation to bar us intentionally is off the mark. Rather than an adjusted score on a board, such behavior deserves more extreme sanction. AW From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 16:56:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:56:13 +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 QAA19933 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:56:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtge1.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.193.193]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA09543; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:55:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19991215060626.0070c554@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:06:26 -0800 To: Steve Willner From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:17 PM 12/14/99 -0500, you wrote: >> LORMANT Philippe wrote: >> > South is playing 7S. >> > Spades are like this: Dummy: A J 10 3 >> > South: K 9 8 2 >(I think 'V' was the valet, not the vrouw.) > >> From: Konrad Ciborowski >> L16: >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information >> from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. >> To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an >> infraction of law. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> The fact that West chooses to accept the LOOT is not an information >> obtained from legal call or play. > >But that doesn't mean it is unauthorized. There is no way the list in >L16 can be considered a complete list of AI. Generally, operation of >law is considered AI for all players. i have a recollection that this is an example of an alcatraz coup, and that if done with intent to mislead is subject to severe disciplinary penalty. can someone with a better memory than me confirm this? henrysun From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 19:28:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA20314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:28:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA20309 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:27:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.unimuenster.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:27:21 +0100 Message-ID: <004b01bf46d6$4832d5e0$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> From: Richard Bley To: Anne Jones , BLML References: <01bf46a0$59858ee0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:27:52 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.3825.400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id TAA20310 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 3:01 AM Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? : OOOps. I have just RTFLB again. I was wrong. Partner was not an opponent. Well, thatŽs depend on the partnership ;-) Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 19:41:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA20369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:41:08 +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 TAA20363 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:40:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09190 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:39:42 +0100 Message-ID: <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:38:54 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article , Martin > Sinot writes > >masterit wrote: > > > >>here's one that caused a fair amount of page-turning at my clubs pairs > >>championship last night. > >> > >>table a: defender points out to declarer in the middle of play that > >>there is a face-down card on the floor by his chair. declarer picks it > >>up and "restores" it to his hand. at the end of play he finds that he > >>now has fourteen cards. he has tried to do something with the 14 card > >>suit which didn't work, giving him well below average. > >> > >>table b: has played the board with 51 cards and due to the fact that the > >>missing card created a void, bid to a slam, claiming part way through, > >>and getting an outright top. > >> > >>the laws dont seem to allow for a 53 card pack.....ideas? > >> > >>larry > > Law 1. > Duplicate Contract Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards ... > > We were not playing Duplicate Contract Bridge chs john I guess this means you want to adjust A(+/-) or so. What if a card is missing? Would you then also ingore L14 and apply L1? -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Dec 15 19:46:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA20390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:46:12 +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 TAA20385 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:46:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.89.113] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11yA4H-0005mL-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:45:53 +0000 Message-ID: <006501bf46d8$e2019ce0$7159063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <01bf469f$8b133760$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:46:29 -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 DWS wrote: > Anne Jones wrote: > >From: Marvin L. French > > >>A club TD asked me what she should have done when South passed out > >>of rotation, and dealer North, perhaps not noticing the pass, also > >>passed. > >> > >>I said I had no idea, but would ask the BLML gurus. > > >At the risk of being called a guru I would suggest (nicely) that "she" > >should > >RTFLB. > >Law 28B > >Call by Correct Player Cancelling Call Out of Rotation > >A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it > >was to call, before a penalty has been assessed for a call out of rotation > >by an opponent; making such a call forfeits the right to penalise the call > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >out of rotation, and the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not > >called at that turn, but Law 16C2 applies. > >WTP? > > Sorry, it does not apply when your pd has made the POOT. I think > JohnP's answer is right. > I seem to remember some discussion of this a while ago, but I was not sure what consensus was reached (if any) on the answer to this question: (A) In the instant following South's pass out of rotation when North is the dealer, whose turn is it to call? Since West is the player who will first be asked to act by the TD when she arrives, it seems that the answer to this question is "West" (or, for the pedants, "West's"). But such simple logic was roundly rejected in, for example, the Case of the Fifth Card. Moreover, what is the answer to this question: (B) If the answer to (A) is "West", then if North passes before West has a chance to act, this pass is (presumably) also out of rotation. In the instant following that pass, whose turn is it now to call? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 20:18:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:18:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA20477 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:18:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.unimuenster.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:17:05 +0100 Message-ID: <007901bf46dd$3b103d60$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> From: Richard Bley To: Konrad Ciborowski , BLML References: <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl> Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:17:37 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.3825.400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 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 UAA20479 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" : "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: : > : > In article , Martin : > Sinot writes : > >masterit wrote: : > > : > >>here's one that caused a fair amount of page-turning at my clubs pairs : > >>championship last night. : > >> : > >>table a: defender points out to declarer in the middle of play that : > >>there is a face-down card on the floor by his chair. declarer picks it : > >>up and "restores" it to his hand. at the end of play he finds that he : > >>now has fourteen cards. he has tried to do something with the 14 card : > >>suit which didn't work, giving him well below average. : > >> : > >>table b: has played the board with 51 cards and due to the fact that the : > >>missing card created a void, bid to a slam, claiming part way through, : > >>and getting an outright top. : > >> : > >>the laws dont seem to allow for a 53 card pack.....ideas? : > >> : > >>larry : > : > Law 1. : > Duplicate Contract Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards ... : > : > We were not playing Duplicate Contract Bridge chs john : : I guess this means you want to adjust A(+/-) or so. : What if a card is missing? Would you then also ingore : L14 and apply L1? : Brilliant remark ;-) If you play with 51 cards itŽs still bridge (obviously, as they have laws for this case). So if you are playing with 53 cards there is no reason to assume, that this is no bridge. Cheers Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 20:31:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:31:53 +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 UAA20536 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:31:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp207-143.worldonline.nl [195.241.207.143]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23136 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:31:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001601bf46df$6e73d700$8fcff1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:33:16 +0100 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 On this subject, which Larry (Larry who?) contributed to BLML, Richard Bley, Martin Sinot,Ton Kooijman and John Probst replied. Larry wrote: > >>here's one that caused a fair amount of page-turning at my clubs pairs >>championship last night. >> >>table a: defender points out to declarer in the middle of play that >>there is a face-down card on the floor by his chair. declarer picks it >>up and "restores" it to his hand. at the end of play he finds that he >>now has fourteen cards. he has tried to do something with the 14 card >>suit which didn't work, giving him well below average. >> >>table b: has played the board with 51 cards and due to the fact that the >>missing card created a void, bid to a slam, claiming part way through, >>and getting an outright top. >> >>the laws dont seem to allow for a 53 card pack.....ideas? >> >>larry Martin Sinot referred to Law 14b3 as far as case b is concerned, with which I agree. Ton Kooijman replied: . I fully agree with Ton's handling of case a. Richard Bley replied: >Well I had this in a league game 5 years ago. >The player bid with 14 cards and played (he was dummy). >Now a defender announced, that there must be sth wrong >with the dummy. I was called. Of course the dummy had >14 cards (7card diamond suit instead of 6) The diamond 3 >was added to the pack. After not finding any law for this subject >I let them play the board (the defenders didnt agree with me, Are you sure this is the same problem ? As the player with 14 cards bid with his hand, it very much looks as if the 14th card came from his pocket of the board (and as if he merely failed to count his cards), in which case L13 applies. John Probst wrote: >Law 1. >Duplicate Contract Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards ... This sounds too easy to me. An appeal to Law 1 merely because the number of cards in the combined hands at any time doesn't equal 52 makes Laws 13 and 14 look rather superfluous ... Jac From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 21:30:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:30:57 +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 VAA20712 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:30:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id LAA28832; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:30:40 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJJ226GVTO0032VD@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:30:26 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:30:26 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:30:20 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: 13 1/2 cards To: "'masterit@cableinet.co.uk'" , directing Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2CB@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This case is quite different from the one Richard Bley describes (I agree with Jac Fuchs). When the 14th card has belonged to the hand from the beginning L13 applies and things are regulated. I was too fast in case b: only when dummy has 12 we need to apply 64C, if declarer is missing a card L14 with references applies. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: masterit [mailto:masterit@cableinet.co.uk] Verzonden: dinsdag 14 december 1999 14:12 Aan: directing Onderwerp: 13 1/2 cards here's one that caused a fair amount of page-turning at my clubs pairs championship last night. table a: defender points out to declarer in the middle of play that there is a face-down card on the floor by his chair. declarer picks it up and "restores" it to his hand. at the end of play he finds that he now has fourteen cards. he has tried to do something with the 14 card suit which didn't work, giving him well below average. table b: has played the board with 51 cards and due to the fact that the missing card created a void, bid to a slam, claiming part way through, and getting an outright top. the laws dont seem to allow for a 53 card pack.....ideas? larry From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 22:53:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:53:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA21096 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:53:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.unimuenster.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:52:28 +0100 Message-ID: <004501bf46f2$f07e4420$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> From: Richard Bley To: bridge-laws Subject: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:53:01 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.3825.400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id WAA21097 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk same mistake :-((( ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bley" To: "Jac Fuchs" Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 10:54 AM Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards Well I just see that this might be a translation problem: Is a Hand deficient only when it has not enough cards or is it deficient as well when there are to many cards???? In the german translation it states: "unrichtig" which covers both cases obviously. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 22:54:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:54:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA21095 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:53:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.unimuenster.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:52:03 +0100 Message-ID: <003f01bf46f2$e1884f60$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> From: Richard Bley To: bridge-laws Subject: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:52:35 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.3825.400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 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 WAA21103 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As usual I hit the reply button and not the replay All button ... Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bley" To: "Jac Fuchs" Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 10:50 AM Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards : On this subject, which Larry (Larry who?) contributed to BLML, : Richard Bley, Martin Sinot,Ton Kooijman and John Probst replied. : : : Larry wrote: : > : >>here's one that caused a fair amount of page-turning at my clubs pairs : >>championship last night. : >> : >>table a: defender points out to declarer in the middle of play that : >>there is a face-down card on the floor by his chair. declarer picks it : >>up and "restores" it to his hand. at the end of play he finds that he : >>now has fourteen cards. he has tried to do something with the 14 card : >>suit which didn't work, giving him well below average. : >> : >>table b: has played the board with 51 cards and due to the fact that the : >>missing card created a void, bid to a slam, claiming part way through, : >>and getting an outright top. : >> : >>the laws dont seem to allow for a 53 card pack.....ideas? : >> : >>larry : : Martin Sinot referred to Law 14b3 as far as case b is concerned, with which : I agree. : : Ton Kooijman replied: : . : I fully agree with Ton's handling of case a. : : Richard Bley replied: : >Well I had this in a league game 5 years ago. : >The player bid with 14 cards and played (he was dummy). : >Now a defender announced, that there must be sth wrong : >with the dummy. I was called. Of course the dummy had : >14 cards (7card diamond suit instead of 6) The diamond 3 : >was added to the pack. After not finding any law for this subject : >I let them play the board (the defenders didnt agree with me, : : Are you sure this is the same problem ? As the player with 14 cards : bid with his hand, it very much looks as if the 14th card came from his : pocket : of the board (and as if he merely failed to count his cards), in which case : L13 applies. No, the card was not in the board, but was from the hand before (he put 12 cards back and took 13 out of the board then to fusion the cards... Anyway: Law 13 doesnt apply, because the footnote of Law 13 says so explicitly. And law 14 has no rule for this case Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 22:54:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:34:05 +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 WAA20975 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:33:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA03213; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:33:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJJ48QHWTC0033VM@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:32:59 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:32:59 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:32:53 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: UI or not UI ? To: "'Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin'" , Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2CD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > South is playing 7S. > > Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 > > South: K 9 8 2 > > > > B U T South calls the AS from > > dummy as attack for 2nd trick. > > As usual I don't read them all. Did anybody mention L55C? It is there for decades so we don't need 72B1. I would adjust the score and let him explain his 'play' to the AC. He probably won't appeal. ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 23:54:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:54:17 +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 XAA21424 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:54:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-112.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.112]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA16388 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:53:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38578AC2.8566C262@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:34:10 +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: Two passes out of turn? References: <01bf469f$8b133760$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <006501bf46d8$e2019ce0$7159063e@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > I seem to remember some discussion of this a while ago, but I was not > sure what consensus was reached (if any) on the answer to this > question: > > (A) In the instant following South's pass out of rotation when North > is the dealer, whose turn is it to call? > We must really distinguish six cases in which there are two calls on the table, by partners NS, North being dealer. A) South has called first, and North has called after attention was drawn = apply L9. B) South has called first, and North has called before attention was drawn, but after noticing the infraction. C) South has called first, and North has called before attention was drawn, but without noticing the infraction. D) The calls are simultaneous enough so that nobody knows which one came first E) North has called first, and South had not noticed. (I don't think we need to have South notice and then make an opening call, do we?) Case A is simple. Case B might be called cheating, so we won't deal with it, but we need to keep case B in mind, so that we don't make ruling in case C which would make it interesting for North to call and claim he had not seen Case C is the one we are talking of. Case D should be dealt with in the same way as either C or E. Case E is simple. But can it ever be proven ? Since C and E may well have a different answer, we are in trouble over D. The best solution seems to be to treat them all alike. But then we must deal with "B" and not make the penalty light enough for N to act in this manner. So the penalty should be that for South, with something additional on North. Now to David's question. Whose turn is it after South has called. I don't believe it is anyone's turn. Three things can happen: No-one notices, and West calls. TD action over. Or EW notice, and they call the TD. In the meantime North has called. (Or N notices but acts quickly = B). Now it is only the TD's turn. And I believe he should be able to deal with one standard case : Both partners, one of which is dealer, have called independently. > Since West is the player who will first be asked to act by the TD when > she arrives, it seems that the answer to this question is "West" (or, > for the pedants, "West's"). But such simple logic was roundly rejected > in, for example, the Case of the Fifth Card. Moreover, what is the > answer to this question: > > (B) If the answer to (A) is "West", then if North passes before West > has a chance to act, this pass is (presumably) also out of rotation. > In the instant following that pass, whose turn is it now to call? > > David Burn > London, England -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 15 23:54:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:54:17 +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 XAA21423 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:54:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-112.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.112]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA16373 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:53:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38578334.602F57D2@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:01:56 +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: UI or not UI ? References: <199912141917.OAA01122@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3856B08D.745A@wanadoo.fr> <3856D905.C2D07C3C@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm not one for "me too" posts, but what Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > The conclusion reached by some top Polish TDs was: > we believe South that he had no intention of misleading > declarer but we don't allow him to score a trick for the > spade queen. We don't buy a "random infraction" story. > Well, I believe that those cases are alike. As > declarer I'd have no problem in accepting one down > in 7S. I want to say "me too". No player should ever benefit from his infractions, however unintentional or "could not have known" they may be. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 00:07:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:07:58 +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 AAA21492 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:07:51 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 18583 invoked from network); 15 Dec 1999 13:07:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.112) by jaguars with SMTP; 15 Dec 1999 13:07:33 -0000 Message-ID: <38579292.D049D392@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:07:30 +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: BLML Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards References: <001601bf46df$6e73d700$8fcff1c3@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk sorry..........larry bennett, bristol, england the card had dropped from declarers hand two rounds ago. it was played to a trick leaving him with an extra (real card from this board) at the end. thanks for all the comments. Jac Fuchs wrote: > On this subject, which Larry (Larry who?) contributed to BLML, > Richard Bley, Martin Sinot,Ton Kooijman and John Probst replied. > > Are you sure this is the same problem ? As the player with 14 cards > bid with his hand, it very much looks as if the 14th card came from his > pocket > of the board (and as if he merely failed to count his cards), in which case > L13 applies. > > John Probst wrote: > >Law 1. > >Duplicate Contract Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards ... > This sounds too easy to me. An appeal to Law 1 merely because the number of > cards in the combined hands at any time doesn't equal 52 makes Laws 13 and > 14 look rather superfluous ... > > Jac From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 00:29:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:29:38 +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 AAA21589 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:29:31 +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 IAA12271 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:29:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991215083255.00740a9c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:32:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss In-Reply-To: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:46 AM 12/14/99 EST, Schoderb wrote: > Forgive my imprecise use of language. I find that these "free" >decisions somehow materialize mostly when hesitating partner has additional >values for the "pass.". An analogy is the husband/wife partnership who is >never out of tempo, but also never wrong in 1S - 2S - 3S (?do I bid 4 or >not?) Perish the thought that there might be some subliminal communication - >but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. I >think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. It seems to me that there's a common-sense rule of "habeas informaticus" in these situations. In order to find a violation of L16, is it really sufficient to examine a player's bidding and hand and conclude that he bid *as though* he had extraneous information, and has thus violated L16, or is it incumbent upon us when making such a finding to be able to point to the source of that information -- "a remark, a question... or the like"? We are repeatedly told that when adjudicating a potential UI situation, the first question to be addressed is whether there was any actual UI. I don't think it's sufficient to decide that even though we can't find any source of UI, we can tell from his actions that he must have had some from somewhere. I think it's going too far to interpret "or the like" as covering undetectable subliminal communications. 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 Dec 16 01:04:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:04:56 +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 BAA21715 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:04:33 +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 JAA15420 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:04:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991215090755.00744450@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:07:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com> <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:11 AM 12/15/99 +0000, David wrote: >Actually, from most of what I have read there seems >a growing idea to ignore self-serving statements from offenders while >accepting them from NOs. Curious. I don't find it curious at all. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that a willingness to accept someone's self-serving statement is precisely what is meant by giving them "the benefit of the doubt". 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 Dec 16 01:49:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:49:23 +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 BAA21862 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:49:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:48:47 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA11746 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:51:18 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Two passes out of turn? Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:41:20 +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 Herman De Wael wrote: >We must really distinguish six cases in which there are two >calls on the table, by partners NS, North being dealer. > > ... > >D) The calls are simultaneous enough so that nobody knows >which one came first > > ... > >Case D should be dealt with in the same way as either C or >E. Case D is described in L33. It was North's turn, therefore North passed first and South subsequently passed out of rotation. I guess that means Case E. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen, Netherlands martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 01:52:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:52:23 +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 BAA21892 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:52:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtjel.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.205.213]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA30818; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:52:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19991215150238.00706770@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:02:38 -0800 To: Herman De Wael From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:01 PM 12/15/99 +0100, you wrote: > >No player should ever benefit from his infractions, however >unintentional or "could not have known" they may be. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html my recollection of a discussion by edgar kaplan suggests a different conclusion: that the laws are designed to produce equity on average, but that in any specific case the random luck of the game might create a situation when an infraction does benefit the perpetrator. consider these sorts of situations: (1) before dealer can bid, his partner opens something out of turn. my understanding is that the bidding reverts to the dealer and his partner is barred. so dealer takes a wild stab at a contract and achieves the only plus score his way. (2) a player makes a lead out of turn which declarer doesn't notice, and declarer plays a card. the play of the card condones the lead and the card declarer played becomes a penalty card. (this example derives from a bridge world editorial, the month/year of which escapes me, but as i recall it was in the early 1970s.) this results in a cold contract down 1 instead of making with overtricks. i'm not a legal expert and so the relevant laws may have changed in the new revision, but the idea that infractions can never result in benefit to the perps seems overstated. henrysun > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 02:43:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 02:43:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA22196 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 02:43:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na790985 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:43:04 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-22.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.22]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sneaky-MailRouter V2.6h 15/2981620); 16 Dec 1999 01:43:03 Message-ID: <018601bf4712$d1511a80$b4dd868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 02:40:31 +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: Philippe Lormant wrote: >>> South is playing 7S. >>> Spades are like this: Dummy: A J 10 3 >>> South: K 9 8 2 >>> B U T South calls the AS from dummy as attack for 2nd trick. > >.....Did anybody mention L55C? It is there for decades so > we don't need 72B1. No. Incredibly , you are the only one to mention L55C: "DECLARER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN C. Declarer Might Obtain Information When declarer adopts a line of play that could have been based on information obtained through the infraction, the Director may award an adjusted score." So, as long as there was an infraction, the words "could have been" sway me towards ruling under L55C and L12C2 that NS are down one, and with the same proviso, down one also for EW, even though West did contribute to the result with his ingenuous(?***) acceptance of SA. But was there an infraction? Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: Philippe Lormant wrote: >>>.....as attack for 2nd trick. In same time, dummy says " you have to >>>play from your hand, partner". TD is required. TD explains: " Either >>>defender may accept the lead" >> >>I think the TD got it wrong. Dummy is exercising his right >>according to L42B2 to prevent declarer's irregularity. As I read "In >>the same time", Dummy is in time - no LOOT has been made, the >>defenders don't have the right to accept it, and declarer must lead >>from his own hand. I think that dummy's actual words "you have to...." suggests that dummy was aware of the SA LOOT when he said the words. To prevent an irregularity, I think you have to prevent it before it begins to happen. And it would be quite a coincidence for dummy to utter the simultaneous words at that time by chance. It would be different if declarer were playing a card from declarer's hand, in which case there is a time gap between dummy seeing declarer begin to detach a card and the card hitting the table, allowing dummy a chance to fit the warning in before the card is played. However, when declarer says "spade ace" or "pique A" or whatever, the words are spoken without any time gap, so "in same time" in this case to me logically means "too late". Peter Gill Australia. Unsubscribing tomorrow for a week of holidays in sunny Queensland. (?***) or clever, because if he accepts SA both when he started with SQx and with Sxx, then if West calls me or a similar-thinking Continental European TD, West seems to be doing well both times. And South's LOOT may be innocent. Dummy's attempted prevention was surely innocent. And I "may" award an adjusted score under L55C. Mmm, I think I will ask the Chief TD for advice; I'm a bit concerned about my ruling. PG. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 03:00:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:00:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc09.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc09.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA22300 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:00:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.43.134]) by mtiwmhc09.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19991215155933.FTXU10418@default> for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:59:33 +0000 Message-ID: <00cc01bf4715$16c41de0$862b4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: References: Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:51:42 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst > > > > Forgive my imprecise use of language. I find that these "free" > >decisions somehow materialize mostly when hesitating partner has additional > >values for the "pass.". An analogy is the husband/wife partnership who is > >never out of tempo, but also never wrong in 1S - 2S - 3S (?do I bid 4 or > >not?) Perish the thought that there might be some subliminal communication - > >but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. I > >think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. > > Kojak > > I think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not > being self-serving. You have pre-empted the question. Our man was > _always bidding 4_. As I said the US position is more extreme than > the uk one, and I'd not be surprised by a US decision to rule 3H to be a > LA. Cheers john John, this line of thinking is a bit of a puzzle to me. I have made an invitational call; partner has said 'no thank-you' albeit with some doubt(hesitation); now I bid game. You don't think the statement 'I'm always bidding 4' isn't self-serving? Even pre-emptively self-serving? Why didn't I just bid 4 straight away? I do think you have this one wrong. Additionally, I am having trouble believing that TDs in the UK/EBU would allow this call as readily as you seem to imply. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 03:04:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:04:59 +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 DAA22331 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:04:50 +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 11yGuw-0005NX-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:04:43 +0000 Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:04:42 GMT Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.2s, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3857bc1a.2917.0@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 >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Richard Bley" >To: "Jac Fuchs" >Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 10:54 AM >Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards > > >Well I just see that this might be a translation problem: > >Is a Hand deficient only when it has not enough cards or is it deficient as well when there are too many cards???? > >In the german translation it states: "unrichtig" which covers both cases obviously. A "deficiency" is primarily a lack, an incompleteness - but the word can also mean a "defect", which again primarily means a lack, but can also mean simply a fault. Hence, while one's first instinct would be to say that a hand is "deficient" only if it contained too few cards, one could argue that a hand is "deficient = defetcive = faulty" when it contains any but the correct number of cards. I would not apply such an argument myself, but I would concede that it was not without force. "Unrichtig", or "incorrect", does indeed cover both cases; one coud argue that this is an imprecision in translation, since the Law in which it occurs relates only to missing cards. Before one does so, however, one might wonder what the opposite of "deficient" would be - that is, what single English word would one use to describe a hand containing too many cards? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 04:36:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 04:36:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA22947 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 04:36:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:36:28 -0800 Message-ID: <01ca01bf4722$e62667c0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00cc01bf4715$16c41de0$862b4b0c@default> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:36:16 -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 F. Beye wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > > > > > > Forgive my imprecise use of language. I find that these "free" > > >decisions somehow materialize mostly when hesitating partner has > additional > > >values for the "pass.". An analogy is the husband/wife partnership who is > > >never out of tempo, but also never wrong in 1S - 2S - 3S (?do I bid 4 or > > >not?) Perish the thought that there might be some subliminal > communication - > > >but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. I > > >think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. > > > Kojak > > > > I think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not > > being self-serving. You have pre-empted the question. Our man was > > _always bidding 4_. As I said the US position is more extreme than > > the uk one, and I'd not be surprised by a US decision to rule 3H to be a > > LA. Cheers john > > > John, this line of thinking is a bit of a puzzle to me. I have made an > invitational call; partner has said 'no thank-you' albeit with some > doubt(hesitation); now I bid game. You don't think the statement 'I'm > always bidding 4' isn't self-serving? Even pre-emptively self-serving? > Why didn't I just bid 4 straight away? > I believe the player said that the 3D bid was made because 4H would sound like a weak preemptive bid, and the intent was to bid game on the next round, regardless of opener's next call. That sounds reasonable, but passing 3H looks like a logical call to me, no matter what the original intent was. A player's uncorroborated testimony about intent cannot be accepted as evidence, since breaks in tempo are notoriously apt to implant in memory a firm intent that may not have been there, or may not have been firm, before the break. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 04:49:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 04:49:06 +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 EAA23050 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 04:48:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:48:43 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id SAA12231 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:34:00 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: UI or not UI ? Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:24:00 +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 Henry Sun wrote: >> >>No player should ever benefit from his infractions, however >>unintentional or "could not have known" they may be. >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > >my recollection of a discussion by edgar kaplan suggests a different >conclusion: that the laws are designed to produce equity on average, >but that in any specific case the random luck of the game might >create a situation when an infraction does benefit the perpetrator. > >consider these sorts of situations: > >(1) before dealer can bid, his partner opens something out of turn. >my understanding is that the bidding reverts to the dealer and his >partner is barred. so dealer takes a wild stab at a contract and >achieves the only plus score his way. It is slightly different. LHO of offender can accept, then the auction continues; otherwise, the auction reverts to the dealer, who is then barred from the auction (L31B). Further, TD will adjust if the offender could have known that the forced pass would damage the opponents (L23). This is not very likely in this case, however. >(2) a player makes a lead out of turn which declarer doesn't notice, >and declarer plays a card. the play of the card condones the lead >and the card declarer played becomes a penalty card. (this example >derives from a bridge world editorial, the month/year of which >escapes me, but as i recall it was in the early 1970s.) this results >in a cold contract down 1 instead of making with overtricks. Also slightly different. First, declarer can never have penalty cards. Then there are two different cases. In both cases a defender leads out of turn: 1) Declarer follows to the lead out of turn. Then the lead out of turn is accepted and treated as legal (53A); 2) Declarer was on lead and leads for the next trick (not noticing defender's infraction). In that case, defender may withdraw his lead out of turn without penalty and normally follow to that trick; however, his withdrawed card is UI for partner (53C). >i'm not a legal expert and so the relevant laws may have changed in >the new revision, but the idea that infractions can never result in >benefit to the perps seems overstated. You are right. It's even in the Laws. L72A5 states such (L72A5: Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction.). But these benefits are all 'accidental' benefits - offender cannot know that he benefits at the time of his infraction. If he can know, the benefit is taken away. The first case above is a good example of this. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen, Netherlands martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 04:49:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 04:49:18 +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 EAA23056 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 04:49:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca256336 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:38:02 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-97-161.tmns.net.au ([139.134.97.161]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Critical-MailRouter V2.6h 7/430496); 16 Dec 1999 03:38:02 Message-ID: <012c01bf4722$e11875c0$a161868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Judgement on the convention card Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 04:36:11 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bit of a shame really. A few months ago the BLML was wondering how to get more input from South East Asia. Now a Singapore posting appears, alas at a time when the number of posts has erupted, making it impossible for everyone to read everything. PG. Derrick from Singapore wrote: >With respect to the recent thread on regulation of evaluation methods, >my partnership uses the WBF convention card and have included this >on the card and in the supplementary notes. > >Would like to have an opinion whether in wbf tournaments this is > >a) legal >b) acceptable >c) "self-serving" in the BL sense >d) just obvious common sense and need not be there > > a) Yes, b) Yes c) Not at all, in my opinion d) I think not, but others may disagree. I think it's very good to disclose that your style or judgement is somewhat "points schmoints", and that Convention Card designers (if any exist) should include space nowadays for this sort of information. >and what would the situation be in ACBL and EBU ? > > >Thanks > >Derrick > >PS: I play in Singapore and we're still evolving our convention regulations > Whilst I have some experience to give an opinion on WBF Tournaments, all I can reply to your last question is that I think the ACBL CC doesn't leave any space for this type of useful information. Derrick wrote: >Note 0: BRIDGE JUDGEMENT IS PART OF OUR SYSTEM > >We respect each other’s judgement and allow each other the freedom to >evaluate the hand appropriately. > >Our bidding is not just based blindly on HCP. Other judgement factors >taken into account include: distribution, location and type of honours, >ruffing values, long suits, suit quality (including intermediates), >implications of partner’s prior bidding (including prior passes, the degree >of fit and strength promised), implications of opponents’ bidding, losing >trick count and law of total tricks. > >Thus when the systemic convention card states for example X HCP or >invitational or maximum, it means a hand that in our judgement is >equivalent in strength to X HCP or invitational or maximum. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 05:01:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA23137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:01:08 +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 FAA23131 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:01:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-94.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.94]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA24232; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:00:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003a01bf4726$5cdbc7e0$5e84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:01:01 -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 I would consider sufficient to be antonymical with deficient in the sense of enough rather than not enough. Could we coin supraficient for the definition you postulate? Craig -----Original Message----- From: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Richard Bley" >>To: "Jac Fuchs" >>Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 10:54 AM >>Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards >> >> >>Well I just see that this might be a translation problem: >> >>Is a Hand deficient only when it has not enough cards or is it deficient as >well when there are too many cards???? >> >>In the german translation it states: "unrichtig" which covers both cases obviously. > > >A "deficiency" is primarily a lack, an incompleteness - but the word can also >mean a "defect", which again primarily means a lack, but can also mean simply >a fault. Hence, while one's first instinct would be to say that a hand is "deficient" >only if it contained too few cards, one could argue that a hand is "deficient >= defetcive = faulty" when it contains any but the correct number of cards. >I would not apply such an argument myself, but I would concede that it was not >without force. > >"Unrichtig", or "incorrect", does indeed cover both cases; one coud argue that >this is an imprecision in translation, since the Law in which it occurs relates >only to missing cards. Before one does so, however, one might wonder what the >opposite of "deficient" would be - that is, what single English word would one >use to describe a hand containing too many cards? > >David Burn >London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 05:06:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:23:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA22457 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:23:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:23:23 -0800 Message-ID: <01a501bf4718$b193bda0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <199912141917.OAA01122@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3856B08D.745A@wanadoo.fr> <3856D905.C2D07C3C@omicron.comarch.pl> <38578334.602F57D2@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:22:44 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: > No player should ever benefit from his infractions, however > unintentional or "could not have known" they may be. > Maybe you should qualify that statement, Herman. A LOOT is accepted, and turns out to be the only lead that defeats the contract. Adjust the score??? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 05:51:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA23315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:51:33 +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 FAA23309 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:51:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from ix.netcom.com (sdx-ca41-55.ix.netcom.com [198.211.50.183]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA05256; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:51:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3857E534.C24F3C3C@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:00:04 -0800 From: "Sandy E. Barnes" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Sinot CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You might add that Declarer may choose to place his hand as dummy and let partner play it. Sandy Barnes Martin Sinot wrote: > > Henry Sun wrote: > > >> > >>No player should ever benefit from his infractions, however > >>unintentional or "could not have known" they may be. > >> > >>-- > >>Herman DE WAEL > >>Antwerpen Belgium > >>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > >my recollection of a discussion by edgar kaplan suggests a different > >conclusion: that the laws are designed to produce equity on average, > >but that in any specific case the random luck of the game might > >create a situation when an infraction does benefit the perpetrator. > > > >consider these sorts of situations: > > > >(1) before dealer can bid, his partner opens something out of turn. > >my understanding is that the bidding reverts to the dealer and his > >partner is barred. so dealer takes a wild stab at a contract and > >achieves the only plus score his way. > > It is slightly different. LHO of offender can accept, then the auction > continues; otherwise, the auction reverts to the dealer, who is then > barred from the auction (L31B). Further, TD will adjust if the offender > could have known that the forced pass would damage the opponents (L23). > This is not very likely in this case, however. > > >(2) a player makes a lead out of turn which declarer doesn't notice, > >and declarer plays a card. the play of the card condones the lead > >and the card declarer played becomes a penalty card. (this example > >derives from a bridge world editorial, the month/year of which > >escapes me, but as i recall it was in the early 1970s.) this results > >in a cold contract down 1 instead of making with overtricks. > > Also slightly different. First, declarer can never have penalty cards. > Then there are two different cases. In both cases a defender leads > out of turn: > 1) Declarer follows to the lead out of turn. Then the lead out of turn > is accepted and treated as legal (53A); > 2) Declarer was on lead and leads for the next trick (not noticing > defender's infraction). In that case, defender may withdraw his lead > out of turn without penalty and normally follow to that trick; > however, his withdrawed card is UI for partner (53C). > > >i'm not a legal expert and so the relevant laws may have changed in > >the new revision, but the idea that infractions can never result in > >benefit to the perps seems overstated. > > You are right. It's even in the Laws. L72A5 states such (L72A5: Subject > to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty > for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders > to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they > thereby appear to profit through their own infraction.). But these > benefits are all 'accidental' benefits - offender cannot know that > he benefits at the time of his infraction. If he can know, the benefit > is taken away. The first case above is a good example of this. > > -- > Martin Sinot > Nijmegen, Netherlands > martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 06:46:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:56:28 +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 DAA22700 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:56:13 +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 11yHiU-0004wh-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:55:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:05:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards References: <004501bf46f2$f07e4420$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> In-Reply-To: <004501bf46f2$f07e4420$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >Well I just see that this might be a translation problem: > >Is a Hand deficient only when it has not enough cards or is it deficient as well >when there are to many cards???? > >In the german translation it states: "unrichtig" which covers both cases >obviously. We have discovered this before: the conclusion was - dubious! In English, "deficient" includes too many cards. In normal English usage, "deficient" means too few cards not too many. I grant you this is totally unhelpful, but I cannot avoid that. In my view, L14 refers to too few cards only by virtue of the wording within the Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 06:46:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 06:46:21 +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 GAA23528 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 06:46:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.254] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11yKN7-000OqZ-00; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:46:02 +0000 Message-ID: <004501bf4735$0fe3f660$fe5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000601bf4586$b6130fe0$b5a893c3@pacific> Subject: Re: Regulation of evaluation methods Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:44:58 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > The problem with the ACBL approach is that it has *nothing* to do with > regular habits. What you are agreeing with is the ACBL approach that > Stayman after an agreed 10-12 1NT is illegal on the *first* occasion it > has 9 HCP [plus four tens and a good five-card suit]. > > You know that I am happy with regular habits creating implicit > agreements but that is not the question at issue here. > +=+ 'Agreeing with the ACBL approach' does not strike me as truly reflecting my comments. What I have done is to look at what powers the ACBL has in regulating the use of conventions. These, as I say and as Kaplan said previously, are given without restriction in the laws of the game. So I agree that a regulating authority has the power to adopt that approach. More, in conferring the power to regulate in the matter Law 40D does not refer to the regulation of partnership understandings but to the regulation of 'the *use* of bidding or play conventions'. The ACBL regulation under attack does exactly that. To paraphrase Voltaire, "I disagree with what they do but I defend to the death their right to do it". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 06:54:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:56:31 +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 DAA22702 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:56:14 +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 11yHiU-000JaL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:55:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:56:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: <199912142151.WAA23089@isa.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin wrote: >On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Jens & Bodil wrote: > >> > South is playing 7S. >> > Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 >> > South: K 9 8 2 >> > >> > B U T South calls the AS from >> > dummy as attack for 2nd trick. >> >> I think the TD got it wrong. Dummy is exercising his right >> according to L42B2 to prevent declarer's irregularity. As I read "In >> the same time", Dummy is in time - no LOOT has been made. > >But he called AS! How can that not be a lead out of turn, either if it was >before dummy's warning or after. Is there a separate rule for simultaneous >play and warning? It does not matter whether the warning is before, simultaneous or after: once he called for the SA he has led out of turn. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 16 06:56:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA23582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 06:56:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.maine.rr.com (mail.maine.rr.com [204.210.65.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA23577 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 06:56:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com ([24.95.20.29]) by mail.maine.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:54:52 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991215145016.00845930@mail.maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@mail.maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:50:16 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Judgement on the convention card In-Reply-To: <012c01bf4722$e11875c0$a161868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:36 AM 12/16/99 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >Derrick from Singapore wrote: >>With respect to the recent thread on regulation of evaluation methods, >>my partnership uses the WBF convention card and have included this >>on the card and in the supplementary notes. >> >>Would like to have an opinion whether in wbf tournaments this is >> >>a) legal >>b) acceptable >>c) "self-serving" in the BL sense >>d) just obvious common sense and need not be there >> >> > >a) Yes, b) Yes c) Not at all, in my opinion d) I think not, but others >may disagree. It seems just obvious common sense to me. But, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that some people view HCP as intrinsic to bridge -- sort of like tricks at spades being worth 30 points. That hand evaluation involves more than HCP is obvious; to have to report this to the opponents seems redundant. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 07:54:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:56:34 +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 DAA22722 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:56:26 +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 11yHih-000JdY-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:56:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:48:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss References: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.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 think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not >being self-serving. When you make a statement that supports your position, that is self- serving. That is what self-serving means. It does not mean that it is a statement to be ignored, or anything else. If it is to your advantage to say "I'm always bidding 4" then it *is* self-serving. If the TD asks how the bidding goes, and you reply "I dealt and bid 1C ..." that is a self-serving statement. You are indicating that you did not bid out of turn, which is to your advantage. I know that people are beginning to use the term "self-serving" to mean a "lying bloody comment by some toe-rag who knows perfectly well he didn't do that and I am right and if you don't rule my way I shall cry and run to my mother" but in fact it does not mean that. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 08:07:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 04:42:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA23008 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 04:42:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:42:12 -0800 Message-ID: <01d201bf4723$b316b320$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3857bc1a.2917.0@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:42:00 -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 David Burn wrote: > >From: "Richard Bley" > >To: "Jac Fuchs" > > > >Well I just see that this might be a translation problem: > > > >Is a Hand deficient only when it has not enough cards or is it deficient as > well when there are too many cards???? > > > >In the german translation it states: "unrichtig" which covers both cases obviously. > > > A "deficiency" is primarily a lack, an incompleteness - but the word can also > mean a "defect", which again primarily means a lack, but can also mean simply > a fault. Hence, while one's first instinct would be to say that a hand is "deficient" > only if it contained too few cards, one could argue that a hand is "deficient > = defetcive = faulty" when it contains any but the correct number of cards. > I would not apply such an argument myself, but I would concede that it was not > without force. > > "Unrichtig", or "incorrect", does indeed cover both cases; one coud argue that > this is an imprecision in translation, since the Law in which it occurs relates > only to missing cards. Before one does so, however, one might wonder what the > opposite of "deficient" would be - that is, what single English word would one > use to describe a hand containing too many cards? > Plethoric Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 08:15:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:56:28 +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 DAA22701 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:56:13 +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 11yHiU-0004wg-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:55:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:58:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? References: <01bf469f$8b133760$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: >>From: Marvin L. French > >>>A club TD asked me what she should have done when South passed out >>>of rotation, and dealer North, perhaps not noticing the pass, also >>>passed. >>> >>>I said I had no idea, but would ask the BLML gurus. > >>At the risk of being called a guru I would suggest (nicely) that "she" >>should >>RTFLB. >>Law 28B >>Call by Correct Player Cancelling Call Out of Rotation >>A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it >>was to call, before a penalty has been assessed for a call out of rotation >>by an opponent; making such a call forfeits the right to penalise the call > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>out of rotation, and the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not >>called at that turn, but Law 16C2 applies. >>WTP? > > Sorry, it does not apply when your pd has made the POOT. I think >JohnP's answer is right. > Just to point out that I have noticed that Anne corrected herself very quickly: sorry, not quite quick enough to stop my reply. Still, it is a point to remember: many people have got this wrong before. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 08:24:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:24:34 +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 IAA23898 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:24:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.186] (dhcp165-186.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.186]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA22595 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:24:14 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01a501bf4718$b193bda0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> References: <199912141917.OAA01122@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3856B08D.745A@wanadoo.fr> <3856D905.C2D07C3C@omicron.comarch.pl> <38578334.602F57D2@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:22:41 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 8:22 AM -0800 12/15/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >> No player should ever benefit from his infractions, however >> unintentional or "could not have known" they may be. >Maybe you should qualify that statement, Herman. >A LOOT is accepted, and turns out to be the only lead that defeats the >contract. Adjust the score??? South opens 1NT out of turn on North's deal, barring North. When he opens in turn, he guesses to bid 3NT, which is a top because the field is in 4S down one. Do you adjust? East drops the DT on the table during the auction. It becomes a penalty card, and South requires a diamond lead, which is the only lead that beats the contract. Do you adjust? Or the example which used to be a footnote in the Laws book: East drops the DT on the table during the auction. It becomes a penalty card, and South requires an opening diamond lead. West has no diamonds, leads something else, and East returns a diamond for West to ruff. The book itself says that there should be no adjustment. What all of these cases have in common is that the penalty did not cause the offenders' good result; it was either the declarer's choice of penalty (a choice he makes at his own risk) or an action subsequent to, and not consequent to, the penalty. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 08:30:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:30:44 +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 IAA23927 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:30:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ta601945 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:28:00 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-223-103.tmns.net.au ([139.134.223.103]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Bulletproof-MailRouter V2.6h 11/1985498); 16 Dec 1999 07:27:59 Message-ID: <003a01bf4743$00e2aea0$67df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Judgement on the convention card Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:26:08 +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 Tim Goodwin wrote: >Derrick from Singapore wrote: >>>.......... >It seems just obvious common sense to me. But, it is becoming more and >more apparent to me that some people view HCP as intrinsic to bridge -- >sort of like tricks at spades being worth 30 points. That hand evaluation >involves more than HCP is obvious; to have to report this to the opponents >seems redundant. > To you. yes. But surely it is not obvious to those regulators that introduce rules about 9HCP hands. The degree of hand evaluation varies a lot from one pair to another. For instance I know many pairs who will never open their 15-17 1NT with 14 or 18 HCPs. Yet my favourite partner and I may have anywhere from 13 to 18 HCP for our 15-17 NT, so we state this clearly on our system card. Now that the degree of acceptance of the accuracy of HCP is becoming an essential variable which differs from pair to pair, I think it should be one of the cornerstones of the design of a Convention Card. But it isn't. Well, not yet anyway. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 08:54:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:09:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA23814 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:08:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:08:42 -0800 Message-ID: <000f01bf4740$8aeb03c0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004501bf46f2$f07e4420$4a54b080@unimuenster.de> Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:08:24 -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: > Richard Bley wrote: > > >Well I just see that this might be a translation problem: > > > >Is a Hand deficient only when it has not enough cards or is it deficient as well > >when there are to many cards???? > > > >In the german translation it states: "unrichtig" which covers both cases > >obviously. > > We have discovered this before: the conclusion was - dubious! In > English, "deficient" includes too many cards. In normal English usage, > "deficient" means too few cards not too many. I grant you this is > totally unhelpful, but I cannot avoid that. > > In my view, L14 refers to too few cards only by virtue of the wording > within the Law. > "Incomplete" would have been a better word. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 09:22:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:56:30 +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 DAA22703 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:56:14 +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 11yHiU-000JaK-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:55:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:54:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss References: <0.6c2b0019.258824e5@aol.com> <3.0.1.32.19991214230636.00771970@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991214230636.00771970@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 05:55 PM 12/14/99 EST, Kojak wrote: >>In a message dated 12/14/99 5:29:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, >>msd@mindspring.com writes: >> >>> I think, more to the point, that they are irrelevant _as a matter of law_. >>> L16 instructs us to weigh the issues of LA and suggestion against >>> relatively objective standards. Thus the question of what the player in >>> question would or would not have done (and not incidentally, our >opinion of >>> his credibility) never needs to be broached. >>> >>> Mike Dennis >> >>This presupposes that any comments made by a player are automatically >>subjective as opposed to objective. If you wish to avioid questioning >>credibility, truthfulness, honesty, and geting a feel for the player's >>objectivity, that's your bag, not mine. > >I wish primarily to adhere to the requirements of the Laws, which instruct >us to rule in these cases without consideration of the truthfulness of "I >would have always bid XXX anyway" statements. No, they don't. The method of ruling is to use objective comparisons as well as all the other available evidence and to apply whatever weighting seems right to whatever evidence is available in making a judgement. Suppose you are ruling on a sequence 1H P 2S by a couple of beginners. Would it not be easiest to find out what is going on by saying "What does 2S mean?". Assume there is no CC available. Then, if the answer that it is forcing to game because they play Standard American you can safely assume, when considering your ruling, that players of like ability playing a similar system and style will not pass the sequence: 1H P 2S P 2N 3C P P ? When ruling you do have to discover the facts, and you cannot do so if you are not prepared to listen to anything you are told. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 16 09:54:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA24092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:07:36 +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 JAA24086 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:07:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from p6as06a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.86.107] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11xw1Z-0003qs-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:46:10 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:09:32 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf46ec$dd03c060$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 Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 9:55 AM Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards >On this subject, which Larry (Larry who?) contributed to BLML, >Richard Bley, Martin Sinot,Ton Kooijman and John Probst replied. Must be a young man called Laurence It. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 10:24:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:24:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24330 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:24:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:23:58 -0800 Message-ID: <002b01bf4753$6dfb32e0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:22:57 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >I think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not > >being self-serving. > > When you make a statement that supports your position, that is self- > serving. That is what self-serving means. It does not mean that it is > a statement to be ignored, or anything else. If it is to your advantage > to say "I'm always bidding 4" then it *is* self-serving. > > If the TD asks how the bidding goes, and you reply "I dealt and bid 1C > ..." that is a self-serving statement. You are indicating that you did > not bid out of turn, which is to your advantage. > > I know that people are beginning to use the term "self-serving" to > mean a "lying bloody comment by some toe-rag who knows perfectly well he > didn't do that and I am right and if you don't rule my way I shall cry > and run to my mother" but in fact it does not mean that. > We've been through this before, David, on rgb. It is very important that this term be well understood, because it has been frequently used in the NABC Appeals casebooks when "possibly self-serving" would have been a more polite characterization of an argument. My humongous Random House Dictionary of the English Language has: self-serving, adjective 1. preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others. 2. serving to serve one's own selfish interests. Thus, it connotes not just "a statement that supports your position," but also a statement that ought not to be given much weight. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 11:01:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:34:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (mailhop1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA23963 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:34:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.81]) by mailhop1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:32:10 -0500 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, 15 Dec 1999 16:31:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006501bf46d8$e2019ce0$7159063e@davidburn> References: <01bf469f$8b133760$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:28:22 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Burn wrote: >I seem to remember some discussion of this a while ago, but I was not >sure what consensus was reached (if any) on the answer to this >question: > >(A) In the instant following South's pass out of rotation when North >is the dealer, whose turn is it to call? > >Since West is the player who will first be asked to act by the TD when >she arrives, it seems that the answer to this question is "West" (or, >for the pedants, "West's"). But such simple logic was roundly rejected >in, for example, the Case of the Fifth Card. Moreover, what is the >answer to this question: > >(B) If the answer to (A) is "West", then if North passes before West >has a chance to act, this pass is (presumably) also out of rotation. >In the instant following that pass, whose turn is it now to call? Interesting logic. :-) I think, however, that it's a bit too convoluted. North is dealer; it's his turn to call. If South, or anybody else, calls out of turn it is _still_ North's turn to call. The fact that West will have the option to accept North's pass doesn't make it West's turn to call - - until he actually accepts it. Lessee here... If West does not accept South's pass, the auction reverts to North, and South must pass at his next turn. North has not passed out of turn - it _was_ his turn to call. He may have, however, violated procedure (Law 9B2, players may not take any action *after attention is drawn to an irregularity*, until the Director explains the pertinent Laws). So, back to the original post - and it appears attention had not been drawn to South's POOT before North passed. So, No violation of 9B2, and it seems to me, if West does not accept South's pass, North's pass is in turn, and stands, and South must pass at his first turn to call. Now, what if West _does_ accept South's pass? _Now_ it's West's turn to call, and North's pass is OOT. Now East can accept it, or not, and the same procedure is followed. If it's not accepted, North's POOT is cancelled, It's West's turn to call, and North must pass at his turn. If it _is_ accepted, it stands, East calls next, and the auction proceeds (South can do what he wants). The interesting question is, can North now change his call under Law 25B? I hope not, but I'm not sure. Hm. This _looks_ a lot more convoluted than David's logic. It didn't seem so before I wrote it down, though. Honest. :-) 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/AwUBOFgJT72UW3au93vOEQKREgCg12ImZ8OdIdktxd/L+5HqPGWl6zcAnRdo bp5b2KjI3iZQ0YdhVzt9U5Lw =8JJe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 11:01:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:01:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA24456 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:01:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (dnas-04-04.sat.idworld.net [209.142.68.74]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA06079 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:01:22 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <38582B9D.6B14F706@txdirect.net> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:00:29 -0600 From: "\"Albert \\\"BiigAl\\\" Lochli\"" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Judgement on the convention card References: <003a01bf4743$00e2aea0$67df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > > Tim Goodwin wrote: > >Derrick from Singapore wrote: > >>>.......... > >It seems just obvious common sense to me. But, it is becoming more and > >more apparent to me that some people view HCP as intrinsic to bridge -- > >sort of like tricks at spades being worth 30 points. That hand > evaluation > >involves more than HCP is obvious; to have to report this to the > opponents > >seems redundant. > > > > To you. yes. But surely it is not obvious to those regulators that > introduce rules about 9HCP hands. > > The degree of hand evaluation varies a lot from one pair to another. > For instance I know many pairs who will never open their 15-17 1NT > with 14 or 18 HCPs. Yet my favourite partner and I may have anywhere > from 13 to 18 HCP for our 15-17 NT, so we state this clearly on our > system card. Now that the degree of acceptance of the accuracy of > HCP is becoming an essential variable which differs from pair to pair, > I think it should be one of the cornerstones of the design of a > Convention > Card. But it isn't. Well, not yet anyway. > > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia. And even yet -- some systems count every "point" that exists - others do not count unsupported honors. Jx is not a HCP in one style and is in another. How do you count: S-KQ H-T98743 D-QJT C-A43 ?? For some it is 12 HCP and a better than average (for them, they open all elevens) opener with even 2-quick tricks. I count it a bad 9 HCP and only open reluctantly in third chair when my partner demands it. -- Albert "BiigAl" Lochli biigal@txdirect.net - Phone: (210) 829-4274 PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 District 16 ACBL Internet Coordinator - Texas Editor, Clubs pages Great Bridge Links - Canada From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 11:28:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 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 LAA24558 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:28:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.161] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11yOld-000Bid-00; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:27:37 +0000 Message-ID: <001101bf475c$66693f00$a15408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <003a01bf4743$00e2aea0$67df868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Judgement on the convention card Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:17:01 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Judgement on the convention card > Tim Goodwin wrote: > >Derrick from Singapore wrote: > ------------ \x/ ----------- > > Peter Gill wrote: > > To you. yes. But surely it is not obvious to those regulators that > introduce rules about 9HCP hands. > +=+ This is over-simplification. The regulators are not blind to the question of hand judgement.If they institute a regulation which allows of no scope for judgement it is to be assumed such is their intention. They are similarly aware, and have been for at least 40 years to my knowledge, that the Milton Work Count operates in a rough manner and is an unsophisticated tool. We should not suppose they employ it because it provides an accurate measure but rather because it furnishes a simple definition, one that can be readily understood and against which it is easy to test compliance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 11:38:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:38:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.alltel.net (mail.alltel.net [166.102.165.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA24611 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:38:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from alltel.net (cras36p33.navix.net [205.242.158.36]) by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id SAA28054; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:38:13 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <385834CD.4281DCA1@alltel.net> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:39:41 -0600 From: Norman Hostetler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-Alltel IS (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss References: <00cc01bf4715$16c41de0$862b4b0c@default> <01ca01bf4722$e62667c0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > Richard F. Beye wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: John (MadDog) Probst > > > > > > > > Forgive my imprecise use of language. I find that these "free" > > > >decisions somehow materialize mostly when hesitating partner has > > additional > > > >values for the "pass.". An analogy is the husband/wife partnership who is > > > >never out of tempo, but also never wrong in 1S - 2S - 3S (?do I bid 4 or > > > >not?) Perish the thought that there might be some subliminal > > communication - > > > >but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. I > > > >think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. > > > > Kojak > > > > > > I think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not > > > being self-serving. You have pre-empted the question. Our man was > > > _always bidding 4_. As I said the US position is more extreme than > > > the uk one, and I'd not be surprised by a US decision to rule 3H to be a > > > LA. Cheers john > > > > > > John, this line of thinking is a bit of a puzzle to me. I have made an > > invitational call; partner has said 'no thank-you' albeit with some > > doubt(hesitation); now I bid game. You don't think the statement 'I'm > > always bidding 4' isn't self-serving? Even pre-emptively self-serving? > > Why didn't I just bid 4 straight away? > > > I believe the player said that the 3D bid was made because 4H would sound like > a weak preemptive bid, and the intent was to bid game on the next round, > regardless of opener's next call. That sounds reasonable, but passing 3H looks > like a logical call to me, no matter what the original intent was. A player's > uncorroborated testimony about intent cannot be accepted as evidence, since > breaks in tempo are notoriously apt to implant in memory a firm intent that > may not have been there, or may not have been firm, before the break. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) I want to know more about the implications of 3D compared to other possibilities, like 3C. There are clearcut partnership understandings at work here that have not been identified. In my various established partnerships, 3D would show 1) weak hand, at whole lot of D and not more than 1H, 2) 7-9 HCP, 6+D, and H tolerance, usually any doubleton or a singleton honor, 3) a red two-suiter, at least 4-5, with concentrated honors, looking for a light game based on a 2-suited fit, could be as few as 6 HCP. In all of these, a hand that evaluates to a limit raise, like this one, with 3+ H would be shown by a 3C call. A 3H response to any of these is a sign-off. If I were "always going to bid 4H" I would have a hand with slam interest, which is absurd on this auction. However, this pair's 3D call clearly means something different from any of my methods, so I want to know what implications are being communicated here from their methods and choices available. If 3D is invitational and 3H is a sign-off, then Pass is always a logical alternative, and the most likely one. I also believe that the comments of the player are self-serving; that is, they are evaluative or judgmental statements of intention that cannot be clearly established by the evidence. That does not make them erroneous, but it does make them irrelevant to the determination of logical alternative. 1) In this auction, 4H does NOT sound like a "weak, pre-emptive bid." Both opponents are passed hands; what game are you trying to pre-empt them out of? I can't do Borel simulations, but I'd be amazed to find that the opponents have a making 5C contract against my hand and partner's minimum more than a few times in 100. 2) You are also a passed hand, so partner is not going to put a whole lot of non-existent high card values in it. 3) So your first goal is to go plus on this hand, and avoid any minus. I would bid 4H immediately with this hand because I can visualize many "sound minimum opening hands" (a standard for a 4th-chair opener not based on unusual distribution) for my partner that would enable it to make, and becuase I want to be in any game contract with at least a 40% chance of making at IMPs. I also agree that a relatively balanced minimum opening 1H would guarantee something in S, because you don't want to provoke unnecessarily the sleeping top-dog suit. 4) IF this player judged that the odds of game are sufficiently unattractive to risk the minus unless partner has a little something extra, especially in D, then 3H is a sign-off that MUST be respected with this hand. Assuming 3D is some sort of an invitational call in the first place, I believe that more than 75% of players who made that bid would Pass the 3H response. I also believe that perhaps 75% of players would get to 4H opposite a partner who opened 1H, but NOT by this sequence, so they are NOT the universe of players who are being compared to this player. If my LHO were now to bid 4C (to play), I might reconsider if an in-tempo bidding came back to me in the balance chair. But that would depend in part on what my 3D bid guaranteed in the first place, and what partner's passes implied within our system. Unless I can be convinced that the player's system REQUIRES some sort of limited call by a passed hand on the way to a 4H bid, I would not even consider allowing a 4H call. And if these players had that kind of a system, what does the 3H bidder have to think about or worry about? The UI is all that shows the "something extra." And the player's stated intention and rationale are classic examples of "self-serving statements." I would give a lot more credit to something like "I screwed up and made a dumb bid and was trying to recover from it." Norm Hostetler From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 12:23:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:23:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from embelia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-7.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24847 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:23:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by embelia.wanadoo.fr; 16 Dec 1999 02:23:15 +0100 Received: from lormant (164.138.50.75) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 16 Dec 1999 02:22:22 +0100 Message-ID: <38583D1F.FD7@wanadoo.fr> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 02:15:11 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Konrad Ciborowski CC: BLML Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: <199912141917.OAA01122@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3856B08D.745A@wanadoo.fr> <3856D905.C2D07C3C@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > LORMANT Philippe wrote: > > > How declarer could know he would benefit? > > > It's for this reasons, I ask you.... > > > > Amicalement > > PH.L. > > > He could. He just improves his chances. Maybe > he will learn nothing but maybe he will. > I don't buy a story about a random infraction (sorry, Steve). > I firmly believe that declarer had no dirty intentions > when leading from the wrong hand and I equally > firmly believe that the Law should react in this type > of situation - this has been discussed before on this list. > > Here is another "how a player could know he could > benefit" case. It was discussed among Polish TDs a couple > of years ago. I find it somewhat similar: > > AJ1054 - K983 > > Let us suppose this is the trump suit, spades, for instance. > Declarer plays the king. All follow. Then a small spade. > South shows out. A second later > he says: "Sorry, I have a spade". Declarer puts the Ace and... > it turns out the South started with Qxx. South says it was > a "momentary laps of reason". > The conclusion reached by some top Polish TDs was: > we believe South that he had no intention of misleading > declarer but we don't allow him to score a trick for the > spade queen. We don't buy a "random infraction" story. > Well, I believe that those cases are alike. As > declarer I'd have no problem in accepting one down > in 7S. > As I said IM(H)O the wording of the L16C2 is flawed. > As a TD I'd apply L12A1. > > Konrad Ciborowski I Hello Konrad I believe you speak french, because it's seem to me , I see you too, on a french list. Can you help me and translate into french what is a: " random infraction" Thanks you. Ph.L. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 12:27:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:27:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from caroubier.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24874 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:26:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by caroubier.wanadoo.fr; 16 Dec 1999 02:26:45 +0100 Received: from lormant (164.138.50.75) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 16 Dec 1999 02:26:23 +0100 Message-ID: <38583E10.5147@wanadoo.fr> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 02:19:12 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" CC: Jens & Bodil , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Jens & Bodil wrote: > > > > South is playing 7S. > > > Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 > > > South: K 9 8 2 > > > > > > B U T South calls the AS from > > > dummy as attack for 2nd trick. > > > > I think the TD got it wrong. Dummy is exercising his right > > according to L42B2 to prevent declarer's irregularity. As I read "In > > the same time", Dummy is in time - no LOOT has been made. > > But he called AS! How can that not be a lead out of turn, either if it was > before dummy's warning or after. Is there a separate rule for simultaneous > play and warning? > > R. B. Odlin Of course I agree. AS was called. Ph.L. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 12:42:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:42:35 +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 MAA24971 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:42:27 +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 UAA22218 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:42:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA03258 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:42:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:42:30 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912160142.UAA03258@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Richard Bley > Is a Hand deficient only when it has not enough cards or is it > deficient as well when there are to many cards???? In contrast to others who have posted, I'd say _in this context_, deficient means specifically too few cards. There are just too many other words that could have been used to mean any wrong number. Also, in general 'deficient' denotes the _lack_ or _absence_ of some essential quality or substance. "Deficient in iron" means not enough iron, never too much. I don't know any single word that means the opposite of deficient in this context, i.e. too many. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 12:53:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:53:09 +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 MAA25018 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:53:01 +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 UAA22369 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:52:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA03273 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:52:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:52:44 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912160152.UAA03273@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >L16 instructs us to weigh the issues of LA and suggestion against > >relatively objective standards. Thus the question of what the player in > >question would or would not have done (and not incidentally, our opinion of > >his credibility) never needs to be broached. > From: David Stevenson > It seems difficult to get anywhere if you are going to ignore self- > serving statements. Actually, from most of what I have read there seems Michael didn't say to ignore _all_ self-serving statements, only the specific statement about what a player was "always going to do." I, for one, am pretty much with him on that. L16 doesn't care about what the player would have done without the UI; it only cares about logical alternatives (and of course the other conditions in the law). > BTW, how are you going to find out players' methods if you will not > listen when they tell you? Self-serving statements about a pair's methods are certainly not to be ignored. I suppose a TD might lower their weight if the statements seem unlikely or are contradicted by other evidence. I haven't commented on the original case because I don't believe we have enough information. In particular, how strong did the 1H opening have to be in fourth seat? (Most players shade their openings in this position, and anyway we don't know the pair's opening style at all.) And did 3D show a limit raise _or better_, or was there a direct way of showing a strong raise to game? (Probably all raises based on high cards had to go via 3D, but maybe not.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 12:54:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:54:45 +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 LAA24700 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:54:33 +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 TAA21567 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA02801 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:54:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:54:11 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912160054.TAA02801@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: UI or not UI ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > Did anybody mention L55C? It is there for > decades so we don't need 72B1. I would adjust the score and let him explain > his 'play' to the AC. He probably won't appeal. That's very interesting. I confess I had never noticed L55C. Thanks. Are we to construe "information" as the reaction of opponents, which one accepts the lead, etc.? Or only any cards that are revealed and then withdrawn? I guess the former, since L16C applies to the latter. What does it mean that the TD "may" award an adjusted score? What if declarer had continued with the "natural" play after the infraction, finessing through East, and been right? Is that the time the TD should not exercise his option? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 13:12:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:12:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25104 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:12:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:11:58 -0800 Message-ID: <007701bf476a$e415c280$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0.6c2b0019.258824e5@aol.com><3.0.1.32.19991214230636.00771970@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:11:36 -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: >The method of ruling is to use objective comparisons > as well as all the other available evidence and to apply whatever > weighting seems right to whatever evidence is available in making a > judgement. > (snip of example) > When ruling you do have to discover the facts, and you cannot do so if > you are not prepared to listen to anything you are told. David is right on, IMO. One must listen to all parties carefully and respectfully, giving appropriate weight to what they say. If that means zero weight for some, so be it, at least you have listened. It will sometimes happen that an apparently self-serving argument turns out to have considerable merit. That seldom includes a statement that begins, "I would always make that bid." Players would be better advised to say something like, "I *had* to make that bid, because...", and provide some substantiating reason(s). Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 13:54:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:55:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from apeiba.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA24709 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:55:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by apeiba.wanadoo.fr; 16 Dec 1999 01:54:52 +0100 Received: from lormant (164.138.50.75) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 16 Dec 1999 01:54:41 +0100 Message-ID: <385836A0.5F9A@wanadoo.fr> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:47:28 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jensogbodil@alesia.dk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: <199912142151.WAA23089@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: > > Philippe wrote: > > > South is playing 7S. > > Spades are like this: Dummy: A V 10 3 > > South: K 9 8 2 > > > > South does not have trick to lose in the other colours. > > First trick is won by South with AC. B U T South calls the AS from > > dummy as attack for 2nd trick. In same time, dummy says " you have to > > play from your hand, partner". TD is required. TD explains: " Either > > defender may accept the lead" > > I think the TD got it wrong. Dummy is exercising his right > according to L42B2 to prevent declarer's irregularity. As I read "In > the same time", Dummy is in time - no LOOT has been made, the > defenders don't have the right to accept it, and declarer must lead > from his own hand. > > I know I am not answering your question. > Yes, it's not the question but if declarer has named a dummy's card, I think this card is played ( even if it is an illegal play) and in my opinion, either defender may accept. > -- Ph.L. > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 14:02:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:02:12 +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 OAA25316 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:02:03 +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 11yRAj-000A3c-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:01:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:59:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss References: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> <002b01bf4753$6dfb32e0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002b01bf4753$6dfb32e0$d5075e18@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: > > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> >I think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not >> >being self-serving. >> >> When you make a statement that supports your position, that is self- >> serving. That is what self-serving means. It does not mean that it is >> a statement to be ignored, or anything else. If it is to your advantage >> to say "I'm always bidding 4" then it *is* self-serving. >> >> If the TD asks how the bidding goes, and you reply "I dealt and bid 1C >> ..." that is a self-serving statement. You are indicating that you did >> not bid out of turn, which is to your advantage. >> >> I know that people are beginning to use the term "self-serving" to >> mean a "lying bloody comment by some toe-rag who knows perfectly well he >> didn't do that and I am right and if you don't rule my way I shall cry >> and run to my mother" but in fact it does not mean that. >> > >We've been through this before, David, on rgb. It is very important that this >term be well understood, because it has been frequently used in the NABC >Appeals casebooks when "possibly self-serving" would have been a more polite >characterization of an argument. > >My humongous Random House Dictionary of the English Language has: > >self-serving, adjective > >1. preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the >interests, well-being, etc., of others. > >2. serving to serve one's own selfish interests. > >Thus, it connotes not just "a statement that supports your position," but also >a statement that ought not to be given much weight. No, Marvin. #2 is what concerns us here: #1 clearly refers to a self- serving *person*. The fact that a statement helps a player's selfish interests is insufficient reason to ascribe a low weighting to it. The TD or AC should ascribe a weighting dependent on various other factors. Furthermore, both sides will make self-serving statements: it is wrong to automatically write all such statements off. The problem is that a decent TD/AC will do the correct thing: this sort of jargon will be used by bad TD/ACs to justify making decisions by rote rather than be good practice. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 16 15:06:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:10:03 +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 NAA25086 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:09:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei5q.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.186]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA10270 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:09:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991215203316.007746f8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:33:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com> <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:11 AM 12/15/99 +0000, David S wrote: > It seems difficult to get anywhere if you are going to ignore self- >serving statements. Actually, from most of what I have read there seems >a growing idea to ignore self-serving statements from offenders while >accepting them from NOs. Curious. I have not made any categorical claim that self-serving statements are to be ignored. The specific category of statement which is irrelevant under the Laws is the claim that a player would have bid a certain way even without the UI. It is irrelevant because even if we find it 100% convincing, we are obliged to rule against him if, under the standards imposed by the SO, we determine that he had LA's and that the chosen action could have been demonstrably suggested by the UI. Those standards require us to evaluate the hypothetical decisions of _other_ players, using the same method and style and of comparable ability. > BTW, how are you going to find out players' methods if you will not >listen when they tell you? Obviously I would listen to legally relevant information, which includes a discussion of the player's methods. I am only arguing that the design of L16 makes the credibility of the above type of claim irrelevant, wisely so IMO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 15:15:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:10:02 +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 NAA25085 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:09:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei5q.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.186]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA24581 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:09:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991215210058.00775050@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:00:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? In-Reply-To: <018601bf4712$d1511a80$b4dd868b@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:40 AM 12/16/99 +1100, Peter wrote: >Ton Kooijman wrote: >Philippe Lormant wrote: >>>> South is playing 7S. >>>> Spades are like this: Dummy: A J 10 3 >>>> South: K 9 8 2 >>>> B U T South calls the AS from dummy as attack for 2nd trick. >> >>.....Did anybody mention L55C? It is there for decades so >> we don't need 72B1. > >No. Incredibly , you are the only one to mention L55C: >"DECLARER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN >C. Declarer Might Obtain Information >When declarer adopts a line of play that could have been based on >information obtained through the infraction, the Director may award >an adjusted score." > >So, as long as there was an infraction, the words "could have been" >sway me towards ruling under L55C and L12C2 that NS are down >one, and with the same proviso, down one also for EW, even though >West did contribute to the result with his ingenuous(?***) acceptance >of SA. What information??? Consider the same problem, but with declarer successfully finessing against East, perhaps reasoning that West was trying too hard to sound like a player with the spade Q doubleton. Do you adjust in this case as well? And what if the opponents decline to accept the LOOT, and declarer successfully works out that this means the Q is with East (or even West, reverse psychology-wise)? If you decline to adjust in these cases, then you have some explaining to do about why these are fundamentally different from the original one. And if not, then you have determined that declarer cannot be allowed to make his contract, regardless of the location of the missing Q and regardless of the option exercised by the opponents, unless the position and the elected option force a successful line (e.g., West accepts, Qx is with east). And that seems like a _much_ harsher penalty for what was almost certainly an inadvertent LOOT than provided for in the Laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 15:21:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA25534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:21:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from red.impulsedata.net (root@red.impulsedata.net [209.63.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25529 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:21:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from phil (47.phx-ts01.impulsedata.net [209.63.68.47]) by red.impulsedata.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA61092; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:10:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from golddoc@impulsedata.net) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19991215210812.008349c0@impulsedata.net> X-Sender: golddoc@impulsedata.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:08:12 -0700 To: discuss@okbridge.com From: Phil Guptill Subject: LA, Chapter VII {Proprieties} UI {Law16} & More Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Henry & all! Little did I know that Henry's post here about Logical Alternatives would result in the enormous response that it engendered. When I responded to it, I thought it was a simple matter of a violation of the ACBL proprieties {Chapter VII} and ACBL Law 16, relative to un- authorized information, and thought that it would be virtually unani- mous that the contract be adjusted by a director back to 3H. I couldn't have been more wrong. For review here's Henry's original post: At 11:46 PM 12/11/99 -0800, Henry Sun wrote: >in 2nd seat, white, at imps, you hold this hand: > >ax; qxxxx; kxxx; xx > >the auction goes: > >rho you lho partner >pass pass pass 1h >2c 3d* pass 3h** >pass ? > >3d=in principle, a limit raise with 4+ support >3h**=very slow > >would you consider passing 3h a logical alternative to 4h? the >player in question bid 4h and when dummy went down he explained >that he was always bidding 4h but didn't want to give the >impression of a preemptive raise by bidding 4h directly. > >if someone could post this message to the bridge laws discussion >group and report back, i'd appreciate it. > >pax, > >henrysun >sinisterminister ******************** The bridge laws discussion group has made a goodly number of responses to this situation, the vast majority of which I've forwarded to OKBdiscuss. At this juncture, it looks like a roughly 60/40 split in favor of not allowing a bid of 4H (making) after the opening bidder hesitated for a lengthy period of time before bidding only 3H. I'm not at all familiar with the EBU or WBF tournament regulations, but it would appear that they are much more trusting and liberal in such situations than ACBL laws are. Several highly qualified people have stated that they felt that it was essential that the director...or perhaps a committee to convene later...should provide the side with the possible UI violation with an opportunity to present their bridge notes before a decision can be made. Remember, we are dealing with a passed hand, and a fourth seat opener here. How many of us would be willing to make an absolutely forcing to game bidding sequence with the hand in question, even if we had one available short of bidding 4H at our 2nd chance to bid? Adherents of the LAW suggest that there is no less than a 5-5 heart fit, so 4H should always be bid. Perhaps, but if so, why not just bid 4H straightaway over the 2C overcall? Are all those law abiding citizens claiming that they would never open 1H with a minimum hand in 4th seat with 4-4 in the majors? I'm all for sound opening bids in 1st or 2nd seat with balanced hands, but doesn't that require partner to be a bit protective of us in 3rd and 4th seat? Is the rule of 15 no longer used {high card points + the total number of spades}? Here are the excerpted & relevant ACBL rules and regulations on this matter. CHAPTER VII - Proprieties Law 73 - Communication between Partners A. Proper Communication between Partners 1. How Effected Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. 2. Correct Manner for Calls and Plays B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any special advantage that might accrue to his side. D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. Inadvertent Variations It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be parti- cularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the bene- fit 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 viola- tion of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, 1. Player Acts on Unauthorized Information if the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16). ************ LAW 16 UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from egal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. A. Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demon- strably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. 1. When Such Information Is Given When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed). 2. When Illegal Alternative Is Chosen When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. ************************************** I've had some private e-mails on this matter, and combined with some of the public commentary, I note a tendency that I find troublesome. It seems that a sophisticated pair of recognized "expert status" can't go wrong in such situations. They were always going to bid 4H anyway, whether partner hesitated or not. <*_*> Their expert peers, unless they are the opponents, will accept such a statement without question. Which again raises the question about why not bidding 4H straightaway? On the other hand, it appears that non-expert players will rarely be allowed...at least in the USA...to play in 4H making after bidding 4H when their partner hesitated a long time prior to bidding only 3H! They might not make 4H if they bid it, but they know they will have a fine play for it most of the time...if as one bridge laws poster said so well, "the slow 3H call is really a 3 1/2H bid." I happen to agree with that decision, but not just for the non-experts, but for all pairs involved in such auctions. Otherwise it seems that ACBL UI and Proprieties, might just as well be thrown out, and I dread thinking about the consequences of such an action. Phil Guptill...bigheart on OKB golddoc@impulsedata.net "Sight is a faculty; seeing is an art." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 16:13:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:13:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25714 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:13:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:13:42 -0800 Message-ID: <008d01bf4784$455de5e0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912160142.UAA03258@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:13:12 -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: Richard Bley > > Is a Hand deficient only when it has not enough cards or is it > > deficient as well when there are to many cards???? > > In contrast to others who have posted, I'd say _in this context_, > deficient means specifically too few cards. There are just too many > other words that could have been used to mean any wrong number. Also, > in general 'deficient' denotes the _lack_ or _absence_ of some > essential quality or substance. "Deficient in iron" means not enough > iron, never too much. > > I don't know any single word that means the opposite of deficient in > this context, i.e. too many. Plethoric. If not holding the correct number, one has either a paucity of cards or a plethora of cards. But why look for single words? Why not a couple of good Anglo-Saxon words? A hand with the wrong number of cards has either too few or too many. The Laws would be more readable if small words were used instead of big words. L13. Wrong number of cards L14A. Hand With Too Few Cards Before Play Starts Who are we trying to impress? Or, for the public schoolers and Oxbridgers, whom? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 16:21:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:21:31 +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 QAA25753 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:21:25 +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 QAA20615; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:21:04 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:20:38 +1100 Message-ID: <01BF47E1.7D5CF140.mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au> From: Mark Abraham To: "discuss@okbridge.com" Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: LA, Chapter VII {Proprieties} UI {Law16} & More Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:20:37 +1100 Organization: University of Tasmania X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thursday, December 16, 1999 3:08 PM, Phil Guptill [SMTP:golddoc@impulsedata.net] wrote: > When I responded to it, I thought it was a simple matter of a violation > of the ACBL proprieties {Chapter VII} and ACBL Law 16, relative to un- > authorized information, and thought that it would be virtually unani- > mous that the contract be adjusted by a director back to 3H. At risk of being accused of pedantry, the Laws & included proprieties you refer to are not unique to the ACBL as some readers may believe from your text. The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge are revised by the World Bridge Federation Laws Comittee & promulgated by the WBF with the approval of various significant National Contract Bridge Organisations. As such the laws are the same around the world and not directly attributable to the ACBL. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 16:33:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:33:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25821 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:33:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:33:26 -0800 Message-ID: <009b01bf4787$06e82f20$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> <002b01bf4753$6dfb32e0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:33:00 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> > >> >I think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not > >> >being self-serving. > >> > >> When you make a statement that supports your position, that is self- > >> serving. That is what self-serving means. It does not mean that it is > >> a statement to be ignored, or anything else. If it is to your advantage > >> to say "I'm always bidding 4" then it *is* self-serving. > >> > >> If the TD asks how the bidding goes, and you reply "I dealt and bid 1C > >> ..." that is a self-serving statement. You are indicating that you did > >> not bid out of turn, which is to your advantage. > >> > >> I know that people are beginning to use the term "self-serving" to > >> mean a "lying bloody comment by some toe-rag who knows perfectly well he > >> didn't do that and I am right and if you don't rule my way I shall cry > >> and run to my mother" but in fact it does not mean that. > >> > > > >We've been through this before, David, on rgb. It is very important that this > >term be well understood, because it has been frequently used in the NABC > >Appeals casebooks when "possibly self-serving" would have been a more polite > >characterization of an argument. > > > >My humongous Random House Dictionary of the English Language has: > > > >self-serving, adjective > > > >1. preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the > >interests, well-being, etc., of others. > > > >2. serving to serve one's own selfish interests. I miscopied that one. The correct wording is: 2. serving to further one's own selfish interests. About the same meaning, actually. > > > >Thus, it connotes not just "a statement that supports your position," but also > >a statement that ought not to be given much weight. > > No, Marvin. #2 is what concerns us here: #1 clearly refers to a self- > serving *person*. Thanks for the English lesson. I would have thought that #2 carries the same connotations as #1. Alice's *Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary* has: self-serving: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others. A better definition perhaps, as "serving" could apply to either a person or to a person's action. Or is it just a deft combination of #1 and #2 above? Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 17:30:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 17:30:54 +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 RAA26046 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 17:30:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ta774403 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:22:28 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-94-184.tmns.net.au ([139.134.94.184]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Squeaky-MailRouter V2.6j 17/7379); 16 Dec 1999 16:22:26 Message-ID: <00b201bf478d$a8c1d7a0$b85e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 17:20:32 +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 Mike Dennis wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >>...L55C is: >>**"DECLARER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN >>C. Declarer Might Obtain Information >>When declarer adopts a line of play that could have been based on >>information obtained through the infraction, the Director may award >>an adjusted score."** >> >>So, as long as there was an infraction, the words "could have been" >>sway me towards ruling under L55C and L12C2 that NS are down >>one, and with the same proviso, down one also for EW, even though >>West did contribute to the result with his ingenuous(?***) acceptance >>of SA. > >What information??? The information that West seems to be more interested in proceedings than East. Philippe's original post stated: >>>**Now, Declarer thinks " probably, if W accepts he has the Queen " >>>and after Ace, he plays KS and " eats" the QS....** That sound like "information" to me. >Consider the same problem, but with declarer successfully finessing >against East, perhaps reasoning that West was trying too hard to >sound like a player with the spade Q doubleton. Do you adjust in this >case as well? No. This sounds almost analogous to the oft-mentioned case of the hypothetical player, whom I've never come across in 20 years of bridge btw, who deliberately hesitates to "bar partner". Maybe we report the hypothetical West to the Recorder, and after repeated such happenings this hypothetical West will appear before a C and E hearing. Never seen this actually happen myself....perhaps I live in Wonderland. My previous footnote tried to explain that I think that the TD (or AC) could go either way on this one. Certainly there's discretion for the TD.... who "may award an adjusted score". In such cases some of us adjust, others don't. It's a judgement call for the TD. Of course, some of us judge the situation differently from others. Many such rulings end up on BLML. It's impossible for every decision to be cut and dried. If I have to make a ruling, i make one to the best of my ability. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the best ruling. Much the same as when I play bridge; I do my best but I still make lots of mistakes. I've learnt my lesson here....on the OKBridge Newsgroup, I "confidently" and wrongly predicted that Henry Sun's Ax Qxxxx Kxxx xx "la" problem would result on BLML in an overwhelming majority not allowing 4H. At least I did not accept DWS's well-judged offer of a bet posted on the Newsgroup... DWS wrote to me on the OKBridge Newsgroup: >>I am willing to bet that there is not an overwhelming view to >>: I believe this hand is closer than >>you think. >And what if the opponents decline to accept the LOOT, and declarer >successfully works out that this means the Q is with East (or even >West, reverse psychology-wise)? > Depends which opponent does what. The one who shows interest is normally the one who's most interested. Such is life. Most opponents are simply playing bridge, whether at club or World Championship level. Few players in my experience engage in complex mind games. >If you decline to adjust in these cases, then you have some explaining to >do about why these are fundamentally different from the original one. And >if not, then you have determined that declarer cannot be allowed to make >his contract, regardless of the location of the missing Q and regardless of >the option exercised by the opponents, unless the position and the elected >option force a successful line (e.g., West accepts, Qx is with east). And >that seems like a _much_ harsher penalty for what was almost certainly an >inadvertent LOOT than provided for in the Laws. > A very badly-timed LOOT by South. I've played over 100,000 hands, and cannot recall any declarer LOOTing at such a critical point on such a critical hand. This raises an interesting hitherto-overlooked factor: if declarer wins CA and quickly LOOTs SA (whether he has paused to plan the play upon the sight of dummy or not), malice may be aforethought, but if declarer wins CA, takes his time to plan the play, then LOOTs, he is more likely to have lost track. I wonder if this is relevant. Maybe even highly relevant. All this self-doubt. I need a break... I'm about to unsubscribe for a week's holiday. Send replies privately if you want me to see them. Happy Christmas to all, Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 18:28:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:28:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from stat.ee (gatekeeper.stat.ee [193.40.95.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA26183 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:28:44 +1100 (EST) Received: by stat.ee id HAA07780; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:27:18 GMT Received: from ESA-Message_Server by stat.ee with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:23:39 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:27:44 +0200 From: Aavo Heinlo To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sinot writes >masterit wrote: >>table a: defender points out to declarer in the middle of play that >>there is a face-down card on the floor by his chair. declarer picks it >>up and "restores" it to his hand. at the end of play he finds that he >>now has fourteen cards. he has tried to do something with the 14 card >>suit which didn't work, giving him well below average. Extremely rare case, but it seems that the Laws must regulate the restoring procedure during the play. (Involving TD?) To be exact the number of cards every player can and must have in his hand after any trick is completed. If a defender adds somewhere during the play a Q of spades from his pocket to his hand and gives the decalarer the opportunity to have a glimpse on his hand, the declarer will finesse wrongly. Coarse cheating but I'm afraid that the Law don't cover the situation. Aavo Heinlo aavo.heinlo@stat.ee From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 18:50:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:50:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from red.impulsedata.net (root@red.impulsedata.net [209.63.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26357 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:50:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from phil (44.phx-ts01.impulsedata.net [209.63.68.44]) by red.impulsedata.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA66129; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:40:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from golddoc@impulsedata.net) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19991216005049.00805cc0@impulsedata.net> X-Sender: golddoc@impulsedata.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:50:49 -0700 To: Mark Abraham From: Phil Guptill Subject: RE: LA, Chapter VII {Proprieties} UI {Law16} & More Cc: "discuss@okbridge.com" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" In-Reply-To: <01BF47E1.7D5CF140.mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Mark & all! Thanks for clarifying that point for me and others. As I've said, I'm not familiar with the EBU & WBF regulations, but from much of what has been posted to these threads, and from private e-mails that I received...it did appear that there was a different standard... and perhaps different regulations of the matter of proprieties and UI in bridge playing areas other than North America. Sandy Barnes' post of 10:22 PM here on December 15th, relative to some conversation with 2 ACBL highly ranked tournament directors, makes some interesting points, and also alludes to different courses of actions taken by directors in other geographical areas of the bridge playing globe. Is it even possible that this dialogue could lead to some uniformity in rulings for such situations in the future? Or perhaps I should say at least in those situations where there was absolutely no question that there was a marked hesitation...online or not!!! <*_*> At 04:20 PM 12/16/99 +1100, Mark Abraham wrote: > > >On Thursday, December 16, 1999 3:08 PM, Phil Guptill >[SMTP:golddoc@impulsedata.net] wrote: >> When I responded to it, I thought it was a simple matter of a violation >> of the ACBL proprieties {Chapter VII} and ACBL Law 16, relative to un- >> authorized information, and thought that it would be virtually unani- >> mous that the contract be adjusted by a director back to 3H. > >At risk of being accused of pedantry, the Laws & included proprieties you >refer to are not unique to the ACBL as some readers may believe from your >text. The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge are revised by the World Bridge >Federation Laws Comittee & promulgated by the WBF with the approval of >various significant National Contract Bridge Organisations. As such the >laws are the same around the world and not directly attributable to the >ACBL. > >Mark Abraham > > Shalom...Phil Guptill Stamp Trader List Custodian APS#114183 PCSG#1044 golddoc@impulsedata.net "Ah, the insight of hindsight!" From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 19:05:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 19:05:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from loger.inter.net.il (loger.inter.net.il [192.116.192.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26413 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 19:04:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-46.access.net.il [213.8.3.46] (may be forged)) by loger.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07851; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:00:17 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38589D0A.5EFBA940@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:04:26 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Wildavsky CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The OKbridge Spectator - December 1999 References: <199912040132.RAA19125@josephine.okbridge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with your remarks-letter . I don't want to reopen an old and long issue , but the environment of okb - especially the computers-net problems - and people going to and fro to bring coffee , taking care of childrens etc...compell us to give up ' until technological devices will be able to show exactly what is going on. My personal opinion is that there is no chance - the running days - to do anything about , but players' honesty . My experience on OKB brought me to some astonishing surprises .... I don't believe that OKB contests or regular play can be taken into account of any official "ladder" , until those technological devices (very special !!!) will be provided. Dany Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > I'm about to send this off to the editor of the The OKbridge > Spectator. If anyone has any suggestions for improvement I'd welcome > them. The letter to which I am objecting should be available to > okbridge members at > > http://www.okbridge.com/member/spectator/index.html > > I don't think you need to read the original to get my point, though. > > - AW > > Dear Editor, > > I must take extreme exception to Pitbull's letter in the December > 1999 Spectator. The practice he recommends after receiving > unauthorized information, "Make the call you were planning to make > had partner acted in tempo", is contrary to bridge law. By printing > his letter with no other comment you do a disservice to your readers. > > I can do no better than to quote the relevant law here: > > >LAW 16 - UNAUTHORISED INFORMATION > > > >Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information > >from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base > >a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction > >of law. > >A. Extraneous Information from Partner > >After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > >that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a > >question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, > >unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism > >or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical > >alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested > >over another by the extraneous information. > > In practice this means not only that one may not be allowed to carry > out one's original plan, but also that one must be attentive to > partner's tempo, in order to comply with one's legal obligations! > > It is true that a hesitation by partner does not automatically bar > us, for a variety of reasons. It does bar us in certain situations, > however. Pitbull's suggestion that partner could use such a > hesitation to bar us intentionally is off the mark. Rather than an > adjusted score on a board, such behavior deserves more extreme > sanction. > > AW From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 19:57:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 19:57:09 +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 TAA26592 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 19:57:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA24408; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:56:53 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJKD22QKAU003FDW@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:56:30 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:56:30 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:55:23 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Two passes out of turn? To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2CF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A club TD asked me what she should have done when South passed out of rotation, and dealer North, perhaps not noticing the pass, also passed. I said I had no idea, but would ask the BLML gurus. So? Marv (Marvin L. French) l o s t m y r e p l y m a r k i n g s a g a i n I had one of my TD-courses yesterday-evening (I gave the lecture (don't like that kind of jokes)) and 'we' decided to do the following: West gets the option to make it his turn to call (answer to David Burn). Regardless of his choice (tell me how to say this in English) north pass is a POOT, which means that we have to apply L30A (they did that wrong again in applying 30B, not noticing that 30A speaks about a bid and not a call). Not discussed yesterday evening: If west doesn't accept, south's (this is normal David) pass is taken back and though the pass by North is considered to be OOT it doesn't make sense to give east the option to accept it. If he doesn't north has to pass anyway which looks rather frustrating. ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 20:32:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:32:57 +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 UAA26724 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:29:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07258 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:29:32 +0100 Message-ID: <3858B0CD.3868E468@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:28:45 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: A penalty is always a penalty card Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is a ruling from the World Pairs Championship in Geneva'90 (semifinal). Both pairs were top class. The whole incident was described in the Polish "Bridge" Magazine by the South player. I decided to produce the exact translation (I skipped the players' names, irrelevant for the ruling, I guess :))). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Brd: ??? S AQ1087 Pairs | W N E S Dlr: N H 10962 | 1S X XX Vul: --- D A82 | P P 1NT X C 4 | P P 2C X S KJ9542 S --- | P P P H J43 H KQ87 | D 4 D J1093 | C K65 C A10932 | S 63 | Opening H A5 Result: | lead: S3 D KQ752 +100 NS | C QJ87 | N/S were playing 2nd/4th leads. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "I led the 3S. Low from dummy, S7 from my partner and a trump from declarer. East played now the DJ. North won the DA and returned a club. C9, CJ, CK. Now a heart played to the HK covered by the HA and back came a second club. North discards a spade, East takes a trick with the C10 and plays a heart to the HJ in dummy. North mistakenly discards a diamond but corrects his error immediately. The declarer doesn't protest when the diamond is taken away from the table. He plays a heart once more. I ruff declarer's queen and play a club for the third time. Only then A TD is called and, to our surprise, he immediately makes a ruling: "A penalty card is always a penalty card". It did us no good to argue that East, having delayed the TD call, took his chances to receive some extra information allowing him possibly to take greater advantage from his right to have penalty card. One down is the ruling. That turns our top for +300 to a 40% score." OK. Let's have a look at L11A LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO PENALIZE A. Action by Non Offending Side The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. The NOs took certainly took some action before summoning the Director. But did East gain anything by calling the TD later? Had he called the Director at once he would have been able to take 7 tricks with ease in exactly the same way he did in reality. But perhaps he "may have gained" had the layout been different. It seems that East was attempting to do so. But as NS were top class players there is no question of their ignorance of the penalty. Would you also rule "A penalty card is always a penalty card" or would you tell East "Sorry, sir, too late."? -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Dec 16 20:49:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:49:27 +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 UAA26807 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:49:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:48:52 +0100 Received: from calypso ([192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA16066 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:53:32 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: UI or not UI ? Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:42:57 +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 Sandy E. Barnes wrote: >You might add that Declarer may choose to place his hand as >dummy and let partner play it. > >Sandy Barnes That is only at the opening lead. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen, Netherlands martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 20:57:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:57:44 +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 UAA26851 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:56:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14526; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:55:58 +0100 Message-ID: <3858B6FF.8935A5F6@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:55:11 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LORMANT Philippe CC: BLML Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: <199912141917.OAA01122@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3856B08D.745A@wanadoo.fr> <3856D905.C2D07C3C@omicron.comarch.pl> <38583D1F.FD7@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk LORMANT Philippe pressed the following keys: > Hello Konrad > > I believe you speak french, because it's seem to me , I see you too, on > a french list. Can you help me and translate into french what is a: > " random infraction" Thanks you. > Ph.L. Il s'agit d'une infraction qui s'est produit cette seule fois; Sud n'a fait rien semblable avant et ce n'est pas sa méthode pour trouver les cartes. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Dec 16 21:06:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:06:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA26943 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:06:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis66.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (local, PP); Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:05:14 +0100 Message-ID: <00d201bf47ad$4fd2e9c0$428a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> From: Richard Bley To: dburn , bridge-laws References: <3857bc1a.2917.0@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:07:07 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, This sort of answer is what we call in germany: "Steine statt Brot geben" 1st try translation: To give stones instead of bread ;-)) But it is nethertheless very informative, thank you Richard >Well I just see that this might be a translation problem: > >Is a Hand deficient only when it has not enough cards or is it deficient as well when there are too many cards???? > >In the german translation it states: "unrichtig" which covers both cases obviously. A "deficiency" is primarily a lack, an incompleteness - but the word can also mean a "defect", which again primarily means a lack, but can also mean simply a fault. Hence, while one's first instinct would be to say that a hand is "deficient" only if it contained too few cards, one could argue that a hand is "deficient = defetcive = faulty" when it contains any but the correct number of cards. I would not apply such an argument myself, but I would concede that it was not without force. "Unrichtig", or "incorrect", does indeed cover both cases; one coud argue that this is an imprecision in translation, since the Law in which it occurs relates only to missing cards. Before one does so, however, one might wonder what the opposite of "deficient" would be - that is, what single English word would one use to describe a hand containing too many cards? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 21:13:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:13:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA26993 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:12:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis66.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (local, PP); Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:09:00 +0100 Message-ID: <00e601bf47ad$d6d598a0$428a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> From: Richard Bley To: "Marvin L. French" , bridge-laws References: <00cc01bf4715$16c41de0$862b4b0c@default> <01ca01bf4722$e62667c0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:10:53 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 6:36 PM Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Richard F. Beye wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > > > > > > Forgive my imprecise use of language. I find that these "free" > > >decisions somehow materialize mostly when hesitating partner has > additional > > >values for the "pass.". An analogy is the husband/wife partnership who is > > >never out of tempo, but also never wrong in 1S - 2S - 3S (?do I bid 4 or > > >not?) Perish the thought that there might be some subliminal > communication - > > >but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. I > > >think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. > > > Kojak > > > > I think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not > > being self-serving. You have pre-empted the question. Our man was > > _always bidding 4_. As I said the US position is more extreme than > > the uk one, and I'd not be surprised by a US decision to rule 3H to be a > > LA. Cheers john > > > John, this line of thinking is a bit of a puzzle to me. I have made an > invitational call; partner has said 'no thank-you' albeit with some > doubt(hesitation); now I bid game. You don't think the statement 'I'm > always bidding 4' isn't self-serving? Even pre-emptively self-serving? > Why didn't I just bid 4 straight away? > I believe the player said that the 3D bid was made because 4H would sound like a weak preemptive bid, and the intent was to bid game on the next round, regardless of opener's next call. That sounds reasonable, but passing 3H looks like a logical call to me, no matter what the original intent was. A player's uncorroborated testimony about intent cannot be accepted as evidence, since breaks in tempo are notoriously apt to implant in memory a firm intent that may not have been there, or may not have been firm, before the break. *** I totally agree with this attitude to make evidence. (Not in the result; but that is secondary) *** Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 16 23:18:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:18:50 +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 XAA27374 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:18:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:18:20 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA17753 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:19:57 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: A penalty is always a penalty card Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:09:38 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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 Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Here is a ruling from the World Pairs Championship >in Geneva'90 (semifinal). >Both pairs were top class. The whole incident was >described in the Polish "Bridge" Magazine by the South >player. I decided to produce the exact translation >(I skipped the players' names, irrelevant >for the ruling, I guess :))). > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Brd: ??? S AQ1087 Pairs | W N E S >Dlr: N H 10962 | 1S X XX >Vul: --- D A82 | P P 1NT X > C 4 | P P 2C X > S KJ9542 S --- | P P P > H J43 H KQ87 | > D 4 D J1093 | > C K65 C A10932 | > S 63 | >Opening H A5 Result: | > lead: S3 D KQ752 +100 NS | > C QJ87 | > > N/S were playing 2nd/4th leads. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "I led the 3S. Low from dummy, S7 from my partner and a trump >from declarer. East played now the DJ. North won the DA and returned >a club. C9, CJ, CK. Now a heart played to the HK covered by the HA >and back came a second club. North discards a spade, East takes >a trick with the C10 and plays a heart to the HJ in dummy. North >mistakenly discards a diamond but corrects his error immediately. >The declarer doesn't protest when the diamond is taken away from >the table. He plays a heart once more. I ruff declarer's queen >and play a club for the third time. Only then A TD is called and, >to our surprise, he immediately makes a ruling: "A penalty card is >always a penalty card". It did us no good to argue that East, >having delayed the TD call, took his chances to receive some extra >information allowing him possibly to take greater advantage from >his right to have penalty card. One down is the ruling. That turns >our top for +300 to a 40% score." > > OK. Let's have a look at L11A > >LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO PENALIZE >A. Action by Non Offending Side >The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either >member of the non offending side takes any action before summoning >the Director. The Director so rules when the non offending side may >have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in >ignorance of the penalty. > > The NOs took certainly took some action before summoning the >Director. But did East gain anything by calling the TD later? >Had he called the Director at once he would have been able to >take 7 tricks with ease in exactly the same way he did in reality. >But perhaps he "may have gained" had the layout been different. >It seems that East was attempting to do so. But as NS were top >class players there is no question of their ignorance of the >penalty. Would you also rule "A penalty card is always a penalty >card" or would you tell East "Sorry, sir, too late."? This is more readable. The Central European font with which this message was sent was proportional in my mail reader. According to Law 11, the TD can rule that the right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited, regardless whether the non offending side gains or not. He must rule so if the non offending side benefits from the infraction. In this case, East should have known better. Top class players know that they should call the TD for an infraction. I therefore rule that East is too late with his call. Also, East must be lectured about calling the TD at an irregularity. Note that neither North nor South are obliged to call the TD for North's inadvertent infraction (L72B3). -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 01:41:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:41:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27983 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:41:11 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id e.0.913d3869 (6152); Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:39:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.913d3869.258a539d@aol.com> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:39:25 EST Subject: Re: LA, Chapter VII {Proprieties} UI {Law16} & More To: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au, discuss@okbridge.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 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 12/16/99 12:22:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au writes: > At risk of being accused of pedantry, the Laws & included proprieties you > refer to are not unique to the ACBL as some readers may believe from your > text. The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge are revised by the World Bridge > Federation Laws Comittee & promulgated by the WBF with the approval of > various significant National Contract Bridge Organisations. As such the > laws are the same around the world and not directly attributable to the > ACBL. > > Mark Abraham > Wouldn't think for a minute about such an accusation! But, would think for more than a minute that you should be more correct. Item: The proprieties are not "included" they fully are Laws carrying the same authority as the others. Item: The NCBOs do not approve the Laws. They agree by their association as NCBO's (a WBF wording) to abide by the Laws which are promulgated by the WBFLC and approved by the WBF executive Committee. The Drafting Committee of 3 USA, 2 Canadians, and 1 Englishman was set up by Edgar Kaplan so as to "make it easy to meet, preferably in New York." Their efforts were accepted for the most part by the WBFLC as the proposed revisions to the Laws of 1987. Item: The ACBL apparently does not agree with the foregoing since there own Bylaws and Rules read otherwise, and this difference is a problem for cool, unbiased, and sapient heads to work out. However, as members of the WBF one would think that all NCBOs are fully aware of the requirements of WBF Bylaws. Extra Item: Zones are not the creation of the Zones themselves. They are created by the WBF for various reasons that pertain to the administration and playing of WBF championships. How about that for pedantry! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 01:54:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:39:31 +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 BAA27940 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:39:10 +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 11yc3S-000Lfr-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:38:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:37:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Sorry, it does not apply when your pd has made the POOT. I think >JohnP's answer is right. > This *has* to go in my SIG!!! -- John (MadDog) Probst| I think JohnP's |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | answer is right. |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | DWS |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 01:57:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:57:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe54.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA28049 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:57:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 67870 invoked by uid 65534); 16 Dec 1999 14:57:08 -0000 Message-ID: <19991216145708.67869.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.68] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3858B0CD.3868E468@omicron.comarch.pl> Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:57:14 -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 to making a fair and just ruling I believe that there is a basis for ruling that if a card is not exposed PC options can not be applied. Consider a PC, if an option are selected that restores the card to the hand then it is not a PC any longer [UI restrictions still apply]. However, an exposed card that is restore to the hand without exercise of an option is still subject to being made a PC by the director. Here, at the time of the defender's play, there was no exposed card for PC to be applied. Declarer wants to assert PC options. The director rules that the card be made a PC, however, since the defender has already made a legal play, the PC apply only to future tricks. I think the appropriate approach is 'once exposed, a card is always subject to being ruled a PC'. I think that there is a case, probably for unintentional, sharp practice by declarer. He certainly could know that he might gain extra information from the situation of defender leading without him exercising a PC option. However, the ruling ought to not enforce PC options at this trick, but future tricks, and hence it should be a moot point. However, note the effect of calling the director BEFORE defender leads to the subject trick. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Konrad Ciborowski To: BLML Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 3:28 AM Subject: A penalty is always a penalty card > > Here is a ruling from the World Pairs Championship > in Geneva'90 (semifinal). > Both pairs were top class. The whole incident was > described in the Polish "Bridge" Magazine by the South > player. I decided to produce the exact translation > (I skipped the players' names, irrelevant > for the ruling, I guess :))). > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Brd: ??? S AQ1087 Pairs | W N E S > Dlr: N H 10962 | 1S X XX > Vul: --- D A82 | P P 1NT X > C 4 | P P 2C X > S KJ9542 S --- | P P P > H J43 H KQ87 | > D 4 D J1093 | > C K65 C A10932 | > S 63 | > Opening H A5 Result: | > lead: S3 D KQ752 +100 NS | > C QJ87 | > > N/S were playing 2nd/4th leads. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "I led the 3S. Low from dummy, S7 from my partner and a trump > from declarer. East played now the DJ. North won the DA and returned > a club. C9, CJ, CK. Now a heart played to the HK covered by the HA > and back came a second club. North discards a spade, East takes > a trick with the C10 and plays a heart to the HJ in dummy. North > mistakenly discards a diamond but corrects his error immediately. > The declarer doesn't protest when the diamond is taken away from > the table. He plays a heart once more. I ruff declarer's queen > and play a club for the third time. Only then A TD is called and, > to our surprise, he immediately makes a ruling: "A penalty card is > always a penalty card". It did us no good to argue that East, > having delayed the TD call, took his chances to receive some extra > information allowing him possibly to take greater advantage from > his right to have penalty card. One down is the ruling. That turns > our top for +300 to a 40% score." > > OK. Let's have a look at L11A > > LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO PENALIZE > A. Action by Non Offending Side > The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either > member of the non offending side takes any action before summoning > the Director. The Director so rules when the non offending side may > have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in > ignorance of the penalty. > > The NOs took certainly took some action before summoning the > Director. But did East gain anything by calling the TD later? > Had he called the Director at once he would have been able to > take 7 tricks with ease in exactly the same way he did in reality. > But perhaps he "may have gained" had the layout been different. > It seems that East was attempting to do so. But as NS were top > class players there is no question of their ignorance of the > penalty. Would you also rule "A penalty card is always a penalty > card" or would you tell East "Sorry, sir, too late."? > > > -- > *********************************************************************** > > - 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 Dec 17 02:09:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 02:09:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe25.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA28259 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 02:09:18 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 63488 invoked by uid 65534); 16 Dec 1999 15:08:36 -0000 Message-ID: <19991216150836.63487.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.68] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:08:45 -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 Apologies. I think I could have said it all better if I merely asserted that it takes a ruling to enforce PC options. At the time of the defender's lead there had been no ruling. That does not preclude a ruling that applies to future tricks. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: blml Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 8:57 AM Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card > > As to making a fair and just ruling I believe that there is a basis for > ruling that if a card is not exposed PC options can not be applied. > Consider a PC, if an option are selected that restores the card to the hand > then it is not a PC any longer [UI restrictions still apply]. However, an > exposed card that is restore to the hand without exercise of an option is > still subject to being made a PC by the director. > > Here, at the time of the defender's play, there was no exposed card for PC > to be applied. Declarer wants to assert PC options. The director rules > that the card be made a PC, however, since the defender has already made a > legal play, the PC apply only to future tricks. > > I think the appropriate approach is 'once exposed, a card is always subject > to being ruled a PC'. > > I think that there is a case, probably for unintentional, sharp practice by > declarer. He certainly could know that he might gain extra information from > the situation of defender leading without him exercising a PC option. > However, the ruling ought to not enforce PC options at this trick, but > future tricks, and hence it should be a moot point. However, note the > effect of calling the director BEFORE defender leads to the subject trick. > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Konrad Ciborowski > To: BLML > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 3:28 AM > Subject: A penalty is always a penalty card > > > > > > Here is a ruling from the World Pairs Championship > > in Geneva'90 (semifinal). > > Both pairs were top class. The whole incident was > > described in the Polish "Bridge" Magazine by the South > > player. I decided to produce the exact translation > > (I skipped the players' names, irrelevant > > for the ruling, I guess :))). > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Brd: ??? S AQ1087 Pairs | W N E S > > Dlr: N H 10962 | 1S X XX > > Vul: --- D A82 | P P 1NT X > > C 4 | P P 2C X > > S KJ9542 S --- | P P P > > H J43 H KQ87 | > > D 4 D J1093 | > > C K65 C A10932 | > > S 63 | > > Opening H A5 Result: | > > lead: S3 D KQ752 +100 NS | > > C QJ87 | > > > > N/S were playing 2nd/4th leads. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > "I led the 3S. Low from dummy, S7 from my partner and a trump > > from declarer. East played now the DJ. North won the DA and returned > > a club. C9, CJ, CK. Now a heart played to the HK covered by the HA > > and back came a second club. North discards a spade, East takes > > a trick with the C10 and plays a heart to the HJ in dummy. North > > mistakenly discards a diamond but corrects his error immediately. > > The declarer doesn't protest when the diamond is taken away from > > the table. He plays a heart once more. I ruff declarer's queen > > and play a club for the third time. Only then A TD is called and, > > to our surprise, he immediately makes a ruling: "A penalty card is > > always a penalty card". It did us no good to argue that East, > > having delayed the TD call, took his chances to receive some extra > > information allowing him possibly to take greater advantage from > > his right to have penalty card. One down is the ruling. That turns > > our top for +300 to a 40% score." > > > > OK. Let's have a look at L11A > > > > LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO PENALIZE > > A. Action by Non Offending Side > > The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either > > member of the non offending side takes any action before summoning > > the Director. The Director so rules when the non offending side may > > have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in > > ignorance of the penalty. > > > > The NOs took certainly took some action before summoning the > > Director. But did East gain anything by calling the TD later? > > Had he called the Director at once he would have been able to > > take 7 tricks with ease in exactly the same way he did in reality. > > But perhaps he "may have gained" had the layout been different. > > It seems that East was attempting to do so. But as NS were top > > class players there is no question of their ignorance of the > > penalty. Would you also rule "A penalty card is always a penalty > > card" or would you tell East "Sorry, sir, too late."? > > > > > > -- > > *********************************************************************** > > > > - 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 Dec 17 02:54:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:39:31 +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 BAA27936 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:39:10 +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 11yc3R-000Ilk-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:38:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:33:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two passes out of turn? In-Reply-To: <006501bf46d8$e2019ce0$7159063e@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <006501bf46d8$e2019ce0$7159063e@davidburn>, David Burn writes > >I seem to remember some discussion of this a while ago, but I was not >sure what consensus was reached (if any) on the answer to this >question: > Yep, I had to rule at the Acol about a year ago on 1C COOT and 1D by partner (opener). My reply was based on the consensus view achieved after a very long thread on this problem. -- 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 Dec 17 03:11:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:39:30 +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 BAA27938 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:39:10 +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 11yc3P-000Lfr-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:38:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:11:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss 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 think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not >>being self-serving. The point is that when you say I was always bidding 4 after the hand is over I'm far less inclined to believe you than if you say it before the outcome of the hand is known. However I accept your points about the use of self-serving as non-synonymous with "cheating little b*****d" > -- 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 Dec 17 03:57:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:39:30 +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 BAA27939 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:39:10 +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 11yc3P-000F8q-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:38:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:21:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards In-Reply-To: <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> In article , Martin >> Sinot writes >> >masterit wrote: >> > >> >>here's one that caused a fair amount of page-turning at my clubs pairs >> >>championship last night. >> >> >> >>table a: defender points out to declarer in the middle of play that >> >>there is a face-down card on the floor by his chair. declarer picks it >> >>up and "restores" it to his hand. at the end of play he finds that he >> >>now has fourteen cards. he has tried to do something with the 14 card >> >>suit which didn't work, giving him well below average. >> >> >> >>table b: has played the board with 51 cards and due to the fact that the >> >>missing card created a void, bid to a slam, claiming part way through, >> >>and getting an outright top. >> >> >> >>the laws dont seem to allow for a 53 card pack.....ideas? >> >> >> >>larry >> >> Law 1. >> Duplicate Contract Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards ... >> >> We were not playing Duplicate Contract Bridge chs john > > I guess this means you want to adjust A(+/-) or so. Yep, no choice > What if a card is missing? Would you then also ingore >L14 and apply L1? > > Law 14 provides for a 51 card pack, so I can apply it. There is no law to provide for a 53 card deck so I use Law 12A1 -- 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 Dec 17 03:59:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:39:29 +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 BAA27937 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:39:10 +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 11yc3P-000Lft-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:38:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:16:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss In-Reply-To: <00cc01bf4715$16c41de0$862b4b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <00cc01bf4715$16c41de0$862b4b0c@default>, Richard F Beye writes > snip >> >but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. I >> >think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. >> > Kojak >> >> I think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not >> being self-serving. You have pre-empted the question. Our man was >> _always bidding 4_. As I said the US position is more extreme than >> the uk one, and I'd not be surprised by a US decision to rule 3H to be a >> LA. Cheers john > > >John, this line of thinking is a bit of a puzzle to me. I have made an >invitational call; It never was an invitation, I was just swinging the lead. >partner has said 'no thank-you' albeit with some >doubt(hesitation); now I bid game. You don't think the statement 'I'm >always bidding 4' isn't self-serving? Even pre-emptively self-serving? >Why didn't I just bid 4 straight away? I didn't want oppo to get the hand right. I'm more likely to get doubled this way, and less likely to have the opponents save. There are plenty of good players who'll walk the dog when they want to turn up the pressure. > I do think you have this one wrong. >Additionally, I am having trouble believing that TDs in the UK/EBU would >allow this call as readily as you seem to imply. May be, I'm known to be less harsh on UI than most EBU TDs (and much harsher on MI by the way). thanks for your thoughts. chs john > >Rick > -- 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 Dec 17 05:14:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 05:14:27 +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 FAA29097 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 05:14:17 +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 11yfPf-000MCZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:14:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:35:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss References: <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com> <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991215203316.007746f8@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991215203316.007746f8@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 03:11 AM 12/15/99 +0000, David S wrote: >> It seems difficult to get anywhere if you are going to ignore self- >>serving statements. Actually, from most of what I have read there seems >>a growing idea to ignore self-serving statements from offenders while >>accepting them from NOs. Curious. > >I have not made any categorical claim that self-serving statements are to >be ignored. The specific category of statement which is irrelevant under >the Laws is the claim that a player would have bid a certain way even >without the UI. It is irrelevant because even if we find it 100% >convincing, we are obliged to rule against him if, under the standards >imposed by the SO, we determine that he had LA's and that the chosen action >could have been demonstrably suggested by the UI. Those standards require >us to evaluate the hypothetical decisions of _other_ players, using the >same method and style and of comparable ability. It seems difficult to know whether other players are playing the same methods if you follow this to the hilt. >> BTW, how are you going to find out players' methods if you will not >>listen when they tell you? > >Obviously I would listen to legally relevant information, which includes a >discussion of the player's methods. I am only arguing that the design of >L16 makes the credibility of the above type of claim irrelevant, wisely so >IMO. It really is better not to tie yourself down in such a situation. you seem to understand the problem: you seem to understand the Law: so there is no need to take the final step and decide to ignore a particular type of evidence without reference to the circumstances. It is better to just take each case on its merits. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 05:14:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 05:14:30 +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 FAA29098 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 05:14:18 +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 11yfPj-000Orw-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:14:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:38:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss References: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> <002b01bf4753$6dfb32e0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> <009b01bf4787$06e82f20$d5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009b01bf4787$06e82f20$d5075e18@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: >Alice's *Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary* has: > >self-serving: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or >the interests of others. > >A better definition perhaps, as "serving" could apply to either a person or to >a person's action. Or is it just a deft combination of #1 and #2 above? I don't know: I can't find my dictionary, but am relying on yours. Why does it say "often" and not "always"? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 17 05:15:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA29117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 05:15:03 +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 FAA29112 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 05:14:53 +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 11yfPj-000MCZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:14:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:44:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or not UI ? References: <00b201bf478d$a8c1d7a0$b85e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <00b201bf478d$a8c1d7a0$b85e868b@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >Mike Dennis wrote: >>Consider the same problem, but with declarer successfully finessing >>against East, perhaps reasoning that West was trying too hard to >>sound like a player with the spade Q doubleton. Do you adjust in this >>case as well? >No. This sounds almost analogous to the oft-mentioned case of >the hypothetical player, whom I've never come across in 20 years >of bridge btw, who deliberately hesitates to "bar partner". Maybe >we report the hypothetical West to the Recorder, and after repeated >such happenings this hypothetical West will appear before a >C and E hearing. Never seen this actually happen myself....perhaps >I live in Wonderland. But look at the way you deal with it. You report it to the Recorder so that if it happens a few times something will be done, but so that if this is a one-off you have not accused anyone of anything. In this case a player makes a LOOT - and we all do, don't we? - and now he is going off - but only if an opponent tries to take advantage. This seems totally unfair to me, especially on a first case. Not adjusting but giving a report to the Recorder feels about right for this hand. If there is any reason to be suspicious [apart from having a suspicious mind] that is different, and I would adjust. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 17 06:02:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 06:02:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29373 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 06:02:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:01:48 -0800 Message-ID: <00c301bf47f7$e9100a60$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912040132.RAA19125@josephine.okbridge.com> <38589D0A.5EFBA940@zahav.net.il> Subject: Re: The OKbridge Spectator - December 1999 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:00:21 -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: Dany > I don't want to reopen an old and long issue , but the environment of > okb - especially the computers-net problems - and people going to and > fro to bring coffee , taking care of childrens etc...compell us to give > up ' until technological devices will be able to show exactly what is > going on. > > My personal opinion is that there is no chance - the running days - to > do anything about , but players' honesty . > My experience on OKB brought me to some astonishing surprises .... > > I don't believe that OKB contests or regular play can be taken into > account of any official "ladder" , until those technological devices > (very special !!!) will be provided. > I'm waiting for the time (which probably won't come for me) when one's opponents are shown in live video, with sound, on the screen. You see and hear them, but partners do not see or hear each other unless one is dummy. A player is not allowed to leave the "work station" except when dummy or between deals, or with the opponents' permission. Is it not currently feasible to do this sort of thing for the finals of knockout events, doing away with the cumbersome screen contraptions? Think of the advantages: -- Suspicions of cheating (or the possibility) are eliminated -- A player gets more table feel when both opponents are in view during the bidding and play -- Introduction of random hesitations by the computer reduces UI problems -- Partner's playing tempo cannot be determined -- Auction explanations come from both opponents, and they are oral (but recorded) That's off the top of my head, quickly. No doubt there are other advantages, and perhaps some disadvantages. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 07:22:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 07:22:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29639 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 07:22:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:22:34 -0800 Message-ID: <012401bf4803$2f527ca0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> <002b01bf4753$6dfb32e0$d5075e18@san.rr.com><009b01bf4787$06e82f20$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:20:23 -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: David Stevenson > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Alice's *Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary* has: > > > >self-serving: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or > >the interests of others. > > > >A better definition perhaps, as "serving" could apply to either a person or to > >a person's action. Or is it just a deft combination of #1 and #2 above? > > I don't know: I can't find my dictionary, but am relying on yours. > Why does it say "often" and not "always"? > Because self-serving is not *always* accompanied by a disregard of the truth. However, because it *often* is, to characterize a statement as self-serving carries the implication that it is likely to be untruthful. "Self-serving" is not neutral, as you maintain. It *always* has pejorative force. That is why the ACBL AC's tendency to dismiss NO statements as "self-serving" and therefore not useful as evidence, is wrong. Using the phrase in this way, and dismissing an argument accordingly, implies that NO statements are *always* untruthful. That is neither polite nor correct, and it impugns a player's integrity. That is why I prefer the term "possibly self-serving," which to me is a nicer way to put it, although still doubtful. And, of course, a possibly self-serving statement should be given whatever weight it deserves and not dismissed out of hand. Actually, the adjective does not belong in an AC's vocabulary. The right way to do this is for an AC to say that an NO statement is possibly biased and therefore cannot be given full weight. I think everyone understands that "bias" does not include an implication of deliberate untruthfulness. It only conveys the idea that a player's situation might (when accompanied by "possibly") prevent the player from giving unprejudiced consideration to a matter. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 07:54:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 07:54:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.alltel.net (mail.alltel.net [166.102.165.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29753 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 07:54:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from alltel.net (cras18p27.navix.net [207.91.7.29]) by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id OAA12063 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:54:35 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <385951E9.E81F4FE9@alltel.net> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:56:09 -0600 From: Norman Hostetler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-Alltel IS (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss References: <00cc01bf4715$16c41de0$862b4b0c@default> <01ca01bf4722$e62667c0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> <00e601bf47ad$d6d598a0$428a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 6:36 PM > Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss > > Richard F. Beye wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: John (MadDog) Probst > > > > > > > > Forgive my imprecise use of language. I find that these > "free" > > > >decisions somehow materialize mostly when hesitating partner has > > additional > > > >values for the "pass.". An analogy is the husband/wife partnership who > is > > > >never out of tempo, but also never wrong in 1S - 2S - 3S (?do I bid 4 > or > > > >not?) Perish the thought that there might be some subliminal > > communication - > > > >but years of these "I always was going to bid XXX" has made me jaded. > I > > > >think self-serving statements such as that are of limited value. > > > > Kojak > > > > > > I think when you face dummy and say "I'm always bidding 4" you're not > > > being self-serving. You have pre-empted the question. Our man was > > > _always bidding 4_. As I said the US position is more extreme than > > > the uk one, and I'd not be surprised by a US decision to rule 3H to be a > > > LA. Cheers john > > > > > > John, this line of thinking is a bit of a puzzle to me. I have made an > > invitational call; partner has said 'no thank-you' albeit with some > > doubt(hesitation); now I bid game. You don't think the statement 'I'm > > always bidding 4' isn't self-serving? Even pre-emptively self-serving? > > Why didn't I just bid 4 straight away? > > > I believe the player said that the 3D bid was made because 4H would sound > like > a weak preemptive bid, and the intent was to bid game on the next round, > regardless of opener's next call. That sounds reasonable, but passing 3H > looks > like a logical call to me, no matter what the original intent was. A > player's > uncorroborated testimony about intent cannot be accepted as evidence, since > breaks in tempo are notoriously apt to implant in memory a firm intent that > may not have been there, or may not have been firm, before the break. > > *** > I totally agree with this attitude to make evidence. > (Not in the result; but that is secondary) > *** > > Richard I agree with the attitude toward evidence--I wouldn't foreclose anything a priori, but neither the claim nor the reason are supported by the evidence in this case. My reasoning would be as follows: 1) Both opponents are passed hands; what would the intention of a direct "pre-empt" be in this case? What game are they likely to make? Why would one deliberately plan to overbid and risk a minus on a hand where opponents are never likly to get beyond a part-score contract? The likelihood of buying the contract for 3H is very high since even 4C has a high risk of failing by 2 tricks (one H, DK, SA, probable SK by partner who, if a balanced minimum, will always have spade values, and either a S ruff or another minor suit trick from partner). So ANY 4H bid must be made with the intention to make, or to parallel the most likely contract at the other table(s). 2) The 4H bidder is a passed hand; opener will always assume that a hand that could not open the bidding but now bids 4H has increased in value to something equivalent to an opening bid. That ALWAYS means increased distributional values and SOMETIMES increased honor location values, but NEVER more high card values than the ceiling shown by Pass. The danger of misevaluation as a "pre-emptive" raise comes when previous calls do not set a known ceiling on the hand, such as when partner opens 1H in first or second chair and RHO bids 2C. 3) If the player "was always going to 4H anyway," then what benefit is gained by bidding 3D, other than helping opponents evaluate their hands better? We don't know the pair's methods or what 3D guarantees by implication, but unless it is intended as an advance slam try (which I think absurd), it is almost certainly an invitational bid suggesting that partner needs a little more than a bare minimum or a second fit in D in order to bid game. Partner has declined the invitation, and the player has bid 4H anyway. Where did the "little more" come from that enables him to do this? Ah, ha, the UI. Case closed. Remember that the 4H bid is being compared to the universe of players who thought their hand only worth an invitational bid in the first place, not the probable majority of players who immediately bid the game. Aggressive bidders (these were "experts") will accept any game try at IMPs that gets them to a 40% or better game. So I think that a huge majority of the invitational bidders would pass when partner made an in-tempo 3H sign-off, expecting that even 3H has a reasonable chance of going down, and that game is now no better than a 1 in 3 probability. If this evaluation is correct, and if opponents are always in 4H, then I gain 5 IMPs both times I'm right and lose 6 IMPs the one time I'm wrong. That's a formula for winning bridge. Of course, not being an expert, I would just evaluate my hand as worth a game bid opposite a whole lot of minimum 1H bids in the first place and respond 4H. Norm Hostetler From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 08:10:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:10:38 +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 IAA29811 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:10:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.119] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11yiAF-000BRf-00; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:10:19 +0000 Message-ID: <012f01bf480a$021b9c60$b25608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> <002b01bf4753$6dfb32e0$d5075e18@san.rr.com><009b01bf4787$06e82f20$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:55:12 -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 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: Thursday, December 16, 1999 3:38 PM Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Alice's *Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary* has: > > > I don't know: I can't find my dictionary, but am relying on yours. > Why does it say "often" and not "always"? > +=+ Statements that are true can be self-serving if they are selective. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 08:10:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:10:55 +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 IAA29818 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:10:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.119] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11yiAI-000BRf-00; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:10:23 +0000 Message-ID: <013001bf480a$041326a0$b25608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Richard Bley" , "dburn" , "bridge-laws" References: <3857bc1a.2917.0@btinternet.com> <00d201bf47ad$4fd2e9c0$428a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:09:30 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Bley To: dburn ; bridge-laws Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:07 AM Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards > Hi all, > . Before one does so, however, one might wonder what > the > opposite of "deficient" would be - that is, what single English word would > one > use to describe a hand containing too many cards? > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Hmmm..... supersaturated? overweight? oversupplied? surfeited? In context the last is probably the most usable of these. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 10:31:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:31:42 +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 KAA00511 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:31:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (p011.supa1-tsv.ultra.net.au [202.80.71.11]) by ultra.ultra.net.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA06457 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:31:28 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991217093917.009286d0@mail.ultra.net.au> X-Sender: suelaing@mail.ultra.net.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:39:17 +1000 To: "'BLML'" From: Laurie Kelso Subject: RE: A penalty is always a penalty card In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >>Here is a ruling from the World Pairs Championship >>in Geneva'90 (semifinal). >>Both pairs were top class. >> "I led the 3S. Low from dummy, S7 from my partner and a trump >>from declarer. East played now the DJ. North won the DA and returned >>a club. C9, CJ, CK. Now a heart played to the HK covered by the HA >>and back came a second club. North discards a spade, East takes >>a trick with the C10 and plays a heart to the HJ in dummy. North >>mistakenly discards a diamond but corrects his error immediately. >>The declarer doesn't protest when the diamond is taken away from >>the table. He plays a heart once more. I ruff declarer's queen >>and play a club for the third time. Only then A TD is called and, >>to our surprise, he immediately makes a ruling: "A penalty card is >>always a penalty card". It did us no good to argue that East, >>having delayed the TD call, took his chances to receive some extra >>information allowing him possibly to take greater advantage from >>his right to have penalty card. One down is the ruling. That turns >>our top for +300 to a 40% score." >> >> OK. Let's have a look at L11A >> >>LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO PENALIZE >>A. Action by Non Offending Side >>The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either >>member of the non offending side takes any action before summoning >>the Director. The Director so rules when the non offending side may >>have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in >>ignorance of the penalty. >> >> The NOs took certainly took some action before summoning the >>Director. But did East gain anything by calling the TD later? >>Had he called the Director at once he would have been able to >>take 7 tricks with ease in exactly the same way he did in reality. >>But perhaps he "may have gained" had the layout been different. >>It seems that East was attempting to do so. But as NS were top >>class players there is no question of their ignorance of the >>penalty. Would you also rule "A penalty card is always a penalty >>card" or would you tell East "Sorry, sir, too late."? Martin Sinot wrote: >According to Law 11, the TD can rule that the right to penalize >an irregularity may be forfeited, regardless whether the non >offending side gains or not. He must rule so if the non offending >side benefits from the infraction. In this case, East should have >known better. Top class players know that they should call the TD >for an infraction. I therefore rule that East is too late with his >call. Also, East must be lectured about calling the TD at an >irregularity. Note that neither North nor South are obliged to call >the TD for North's inadvertent infraction (L72B3). I have little sympathy for either side. While NS are not obliged to call attention to their own irregularity, everyone at the table is most certainly required to summon the director, once an irregularity has been identified. I am sure all the players knew the card would become a PC if they called the TD. >From where I sit, it looks like North, South and East all tried to gain an advantage by not summoning the TD immediately. Players that take the law into their own hands deserve what they get. Laurie (In Australia) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 10:44:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:44:44 +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 KAA00547 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:44:34 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id e.0.64722f91 (3945); Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:43:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.64722f91.258ad314@aol.com> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:43:16 EST Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card To: l.s.kelso@ultra.net.au, 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 12/16/99 6:36:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, l.s.kelso@ultra.net.au writes: > From where I sit, it looks like North, South and East all tried to gain an > advantage by not summoning the TD immediately. Players that take the law > into their own hands deserve what they get. > > Laurie > (In Australia) > Amen. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 11:21:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:21:19 +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 LAA00631 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:21:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from p48s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.73] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11yl86-0006OV-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:20:19 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:10:12 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf4823$16847d20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Richard Bley ; dburn ; bridge-laws Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 9:32 PM Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Richard Bley >To: dburn ; bridge-laws > >Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:07 AM >Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards > > >> Hi all, >> >. Before one does so, however, one might wonder what >> the >> opposite of "deficient" would be - that is, what single English word would >> one >> use to describe a hand containing too many cards? >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >+=+ Hmmm..... supersaturated? overweight? oversupplied? > surfeited? > In context the last is probably the most usable of these. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think of the word deficient as coming from the same root in language as does the word deficit. ie meaning having less than par. The word defective I think of as something that has a defect. That is perfect. It is for these reasons that I have no difficulty thinking of a hand with 12 cards as being both deficient and defective, but a hand with 14 cards while defective is not deficient. The hand with 14 cards has a card which is duplicated elsewhere in that pack.It has a card which is superfluous. The player with either hand, who plays having not noticed, is in breach of L7B1. However the hand with less than 13 may have revoked during the play, the hand with more than 13 will not have revoked, but may have won a trick unfairly. The likelyhood of this is far less and like the revoke by dummy, I think could well be without further penalty. Another at the table should have noticed him play a card that "they" hold. Perhaps our new word could be a superfluity, but I quite like Grattan's surfeit. Maybe in this day and age if IT, we could settle for <13 or >13, as different from =13.(Costs less to print!) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 11:21:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:21:20 +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 LAA00632 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:21:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from p48s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.73] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11yl88-0006OV-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:20:21 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:24:36 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf4825$19329b40$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: Norman Hostetler Cc: bridge-laws Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss >Of course, not being an expert, I would just evaluate my hand as worth a game >bid opposite a whole lot of minimum 1H bids in the first place and respond 4H. I believe that when dummy's cards are faced, and dummy says to declarer, I am always bidding 4H partner, that he is often telling the truth. When he puts down dummy, and says to his opponents "I am always bidding 4H", he is more likely to be paving the way for a ruling call." He is now being self serving. My opinion of whether or not his comment was selfserving will have little influence on my decision. I will be looking at his normal style of bidding, the partnership expectations from such a bid, in fact his LAs. What he is "always" doing has little to do with my ruling unless his partnership methods do not allow for any other action. As I said before, in this case, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, I would be ruling 3H. Anne > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 12:11:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:11:18 +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 MAA00734 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:11:04 +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 11ylux-000Im3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:10:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:32:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards References: <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl> 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 <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski > writes >> I guess this means you want to adjust A(+/-) or so. > >Yep, no choice > >> What if a card is missing? Would you then also ingore >>L14 and apply L1? >> >> >Law 14 provides for a 51 card pack, so I can apply it. There is no law >to provide for a 53 card deck so I use Law 12A1 Law 13? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 17 12:15:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:15:32 +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 MAA00779 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:15:10 +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 11ylyq-000JTC-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:14:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:13:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards In-Reply-To: <013001bf480a$041326a0$b25608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <013001bf480a$041326a0$b25608c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Richard Bley >To: dburn ; bridge-laws > >Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:07 AM >Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards > > >> Hi all, >> >. Before one does so, however, one might wonder what >> the >> opposite of "deficient" would be - that is, what single English word would >> one >> use to describe a hand containing too many cards? >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >+=+ Hmmm..... supersaturated? overweight? oversupplied? > surfeited? > In context the last is probably the most usable of these. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? -- 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 Dec 17 12:20:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:20:28 +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 MAA00815 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:20:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from pe6s02a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.82.231] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ym2r-0000Xi-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 17:18:57 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:23:16 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. N E S W 1NT P 2D* 2S 2H * tfr. TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional bid and explains options including that there may be lead penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. OK so far? North is now on lead and has no UI. No lead penalties. However when South achieves the lead we have it seems the lead penalties of L26 even tho' S has no UI other than North would have completed the Tfr.absent the competition. Do we apply Law26A2, specified suit not mentioned by the same player in the legal auction, or Law 26B. Remember that we have ruled that the 2H bid was likely conventional. Was the heart suit specified by the offender? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 13:43:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:43:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f275.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA01120 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:43:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 56821 invoked by uid 0); 17 Dec 1999 00:56:19 -0000 Message-ID: <19991217005619.56820.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.209.165.70 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:56:19 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.209.165.70] From: "Beve Smith" To: golddoc@impulsedata.net, discuss@okbridge.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LA, Chapter VII {Proprieties} UI {Law16} & More Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 19:56:19 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all: I agree with Phil on this one, the laws should apply to all levels of bridge players, especially the experts who should know better. God Bless You Beve (bs3nt) >I've had some private e-mails on this matter, and combined with some of >the public commentary, I note a tendency that I find troublesome. > >It seems that a sophisticated pair of recognized "expert status" can't >go wrong in such situations. They were always going to bid 4H anyway, >whether partner hesitated or not. <*_*> Their expert peers, unless >they are the opponents, will accept such a statement without question. > >Which again raises the question about why not bidding 4H straightaway? > >On the other hand, it appears that non-expert players will rarely be >allowed...at least in the USA...to play in 4H making after bidding 4H >when their partner hesitated a long time prior to bidding only 3H! >They might not make 4H if they bid it, but they know they will have >a fine play for it most of the time...if as one bridge laws poster >said so well, "the slow 3H call is really a 3 1/2H bid." > >I happen to agree with that decision, but not just for the non-experts, >but for all pairs involved in such auctions. > >Otherwise it seems that ACBL UI and Proprieties, might just as well be >thrown out, and I dread thinking about the consequences of such an >action. > > > > > > >Phil Guptill...bigheart on OKB >golddoc@impulsedata.net >"Sight is a faculty; seeing is an art." > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 14:00:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:00:33 +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 OAA01178 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:00:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (3com-tc1-162.sopines.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.166]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Sandhills) with ESMTP id WAA17207 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 22:00:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3859A87C.AFCC969F@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 22:05:32 -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: Linda Trent Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda has asked me to pass on the sad news that she has just lost her father. He died on Tuesday and lived just outside Toronto, Ontario, Canada (she is there) and she will not be available to make any comments re appeals, etc. until after Christmas when she returns home. Linda's Mom, Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 14:30:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:30:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01268 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:30:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.78.221.165]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19991217032950.VBJA5516@default>; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 03:29:50 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01bf47d9$7a1a9120$a5dd4e0c@default> From: "JOAN GERARD" To: "Nancy T Dressing" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Sorry to hear the sad news Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:23:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Nancy, What very sad news. Linda had told me that her father was ill and we had heard that she left to go to Toronto. How difficult it must be for her at this time. Both Ron and I would like to express our deepest condolences to her and of course to you. Please let Linda konw that our thoughts are with her. I will get in touch with her when she returns home. Kind regards, Joan and Ron Gerard -----Original Message----- From: Nancy T Dressing To: Bridge Laws Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:13 PM Subject: Linda Trent >Linda has asked me to pass on the sad news that she has just lost her >father. He died on Tuesday and lived just outside Toronto, Ontario, >Canada (she is there) and she will not be available to make any comments >re appeals, etc. until after Christmas when she returns home. Linda's >Mom, Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 14:41:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:41:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (fb01.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.229.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01300 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:41:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh01.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.1]) by fb01.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA22174 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 22:41:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991216154145.0076ce94@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:41:45 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19991215203316.007746f8@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com> <0.93a2fb1f.2587b259@aol.com> <3.0.1.32.19991214172545.007718e4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19991215203316.007746f8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:35 PM 12/16/99 +0000, David S wrote: > It really is better not to tie yourself down in such a situation. you >seem to understand the problem: you seem to understand the Law: so there >is no need to take the final step and decide to ignore a particular type >of evidence without reference to the circumstances. It is better to >just take each case on its merits. The point is not that the evidence ("I would always bid xxx") lacks credibility. The relevant law does not require players to bid "what they would have bid anyway", and so the statement, in and of itself, does not provide evidence of anything relevant. L16 disallows actions which have been made more attractive relative to LA's as a result of UI, regardless of the intentions or "would have dones" of the player involved. The statement simply does not address the legality of the action. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 15:18:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 15:18:02 +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 PAA01387 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 15:17:52 +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 11yopn-000Hw4-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 04:17:40 +0000 Message-ID: <5BzXSnBrhbW4Ew+i@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 04:13:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski >> writes > >>> I guess this means you want to adjust A(+/-) or so. >> >>Yep, no choice >> >>> What if a card is missing? Would you then also ingore >>>L14 and apply L1? >>> >>> >>Law 14 provides for a 51 card pack, so I can apply it. There is no law >>to provide for a 53 card deck so I use Law 12A1 > > Law 13? > I'd always assumed that L13 covered 14-12 type problems, but on closer reading I think you're right, but only if 'deficient' means having fewer than 13 (which I think it does, treating its meaning as 'lacking'). If the deck has two D9's in it, and I can remove one before the play period starts, and I deem all the things I need to, then we can play it. However, once we're in the play period I feel uncomfortable. I'm not sure L13 was intended to cover this, and will retreat to L12A1. -- 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 Dec 17 15:18:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 15:18:38 +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 PAA01396 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 15:18:30 +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 11yopn-000Hw2-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 04:17:40 +0000 Message-ID: <$BRWyrBjkbW4EwfI@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 04:16:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. > >N E S W >1NT P 2D* 2S >2H > >* tfr. > >TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional >bid and explains options including that there may be lead >penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. > >OK so far? > >North is now on lead and has no UI. No lead penalties. >However when South achieves the lead we have it seems the >lead penalties of L26 even tho' S has no UI other than North >would have completed the Tfr.absent the competition. >Do we apply Law26A2, specified suit not mentioned by > the same player in the legal auction, or Law 26B. >Remember that we have ruled that the 2H bid was likely >conventional. >Was the heart suit specified by the offender? >Anne > > In my opinion, not specified. Law 26B Cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 17:58:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:58:26 +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 RAA01782 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:58:16 +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 BAA04945 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:58:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id BAA04627 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:58:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:58:14 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912170658.BAA04627@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Roger Pewick" > However, note the > effect of calling the director BEFORE defender leads to the subject trick. The defenders may still need protection. What if the defender might have refused to win the trick had there been a penalty card on the table and the implications explained? Is it legal for the TD to allow the defender to lead anything at the current trick but then enforce the usual penalty card restrictions at future tricks? This seems to offer a rough and ready justice, but I don't think it is technically legal. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 18:13:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 18:13:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01819 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 18:13:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:13:05 -0800 Message-ID: <016601bf485e$0813bc20$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:11:55 -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 From: John (MadDog) > > > > Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently > comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? > Looks like John has had one too many. Or I have. Possible translation: Would "too many cards" and "too few cards" be sufficiently comprehensible that they could be used? John is joking, but there is a truth behind the joke. Small words are better than big words when writing about something simple. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 19:19:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:19:23 +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 TAA01966 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:19:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA23307; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:18:59 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJLQ1BIGBA003SEH@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:18:31 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:18:33 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:18:23 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Fw: 13 1/2 cards To: "'John Probst'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2D3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> Hi all, >> >. Before one does so, however, one might wonder what >> the >> opposite of "deficient" would be - that is, what single English word would >> one >> use to describe a hand containing too many cards? >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >+=+ Hmmm..... supersaturated? overweight? oversupplied? > surfeited? > In context the last is probably the most usable of these. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? -- 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 John, dear friend, now I recognize (know) you again (in Dutch we say 'nou ken ik je weer' to express our appreciation). Merry Christmas and a happy new what is it. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 19:23:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:23:08 +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 TAA01986 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:23:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.183.92] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11ysf6-0007E7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:22:52 +0000 Message-ID: <001101bf4868$053325e0$5cb701d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:23:37 -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 John Probst wrote: > Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently > comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? Perhaps one of the many polyglots on this list can answer a question for me. In what language is the above? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 19:53:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:53:37 +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 TAA02062 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:51:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (pcciborowski.comarch.pl [195.116.125.138]) by omicron.comarch.pl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15523 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:51:10 +0100 Message-ID: <3859F951.D0FE917E@omicron.comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:50:25 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards References: <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson pressed the following keys: > > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >In article <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski > > writes > > >> I guess this means you want to adjust A(+/-) or so. > > > >Yep, no choice > > > >> What if a card is missing? Would you then also ingore > >>L14 and apply L1? > >> > >> > >Law 14 provides for a 51 card pack, so I can apply it. There is no law > >to provide for a 53 card deck so I use Law 12A1 > > Law 13? I don't thinks so. LAW 13 - INCORRECT NUMBER OF CARDS When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards... All pockets contained the right number of cards. It's just the declarer who picked up some stuff from the floor and added it to his hand. I think the Ton Kooijman's approach is right but I doubt he will add this sentence to his sig :) -- *********************************************************************** - 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 Dec 17 20:04:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 20:04:34 +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 UAA02126 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 20:04:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA05884; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:04:17 +0100 (MET) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJLRLJSE88003T2N@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:03:51 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:03:53 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:03:45 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Fw: 13 1/2 cards To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2D4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is (my) English, redundant enough to understand, though he will not be our law-writer. Go on John and teach them. ton John Probst wrote: > Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently > comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? Perhaps one of the many polyglots on this list can answer a question for me. In what language is the above? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 21:10:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:57:10 +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 TAA02095 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:56:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.109] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ytBu-000G0d-00; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:56:49 +0000 Message-ID: <001601bf486c$b454fe00$6d5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl> Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:29:31 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 6:32 PM Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >In article <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski > > writes > > >Law 14 provides for a 51 card pack, so I can apply it. There is no law > >to provide for a 53 card deck so I use Law 12A1 > > Law 13? > +=+ Indeed 13. Both 'incorrect number' and 'discrepancy' apply equally whether more or fewer cards. (DB - the hand would be 'discrepant'). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 21:21:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 21:21:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA02294 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 21:21:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uniduesseldorf.de (actually Isis200.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (local, PP); Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:20:36 +0100 Message-ID: <005201bf4878$a21abd40$e48a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> From: Richard Bley To: Norman Hostetler Cc: bridge-laws References: <00cc01bf4715$16c41de0$862b4b0c@default> <01ca01bf4722$e62667c0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> <00e601bf47ad$d6d598a0$428a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> <385951E9.E81F4FE9@alltel.net> Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:22:33 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > 1) Both opponents are passed hands; what would the intention of a direct > "pre-empt" be in this case? What game are they likely to make? Why would one > deliberately plan to overbid and risk a minus on a hand where opponents are > never likly to get beyond a part-score contract? The likelihood of buying the > contract for 3H is very high since even 4C has a high risk of failing by 2 > tricks (one H, DK, SA, probable SK by partner who, if a balanced minimum, will > always have spade values, and either a S ruff or another minor suit trick from > partner). So ANY 4H bid must be made with the intention to make, or to parallel > the most likely contract at the other table(s). > > 2) The 4H bidder is a passed hand; opener will always assume that a hand that > could not open the bidding but now bids 4H has increased in value to something > equivalent to an opening bid. That ALWAYS means increased distributional values > and SOMETIMES increased honor location values, but NEVER more high card values > than the ceiling shown by Pass. The danger of misevaluation as a "pre-emptive" > raise comes when previous calls do not set a known ceiling on the hand, such as > when partner opens 1H in first or second chair and RHO bids 2C. > There are very different hands, which would be a reasonable 4H bid immediately. From: xx Qxxxxx xxxx x up to: Ax Qxxx KQxxx xx or the hand which was atually there. The problem is with this approach, that pard doesnt know what to do, when he has a very strong hand. To differentiate between this hands, it is very useful (espec. when you are playing wide-range opening bids) to use different ways. > 3) If the player "was always going to 4H anyway," then what benefit is gained > by bidding 3D, other than helping opponents evaluate their hands better? We > don't know the pair's methods or what 3D guarantees by implication, but unless > it is intended as an advance slam try (which I think absurd), it is almost > certainly an invitational bid suggesting that partner needs a little more than a > bare minimum or a second fit in D in order to bid game. Partner has declined > the invitation, and the player has bid 4H anyway. Where did the "little more" > come from that enables him to do this? Ah, ha, the UI. Case closed. > Well there may be other bidding sequences, where the differences might be reasonable. e.g.: p p p 1H 2c 4h 5c ??(p) p (??) Now what do you want? Anticipating this sort of problems is the thing which experts do and non-experts dont do. See the difference: p p p 1H 2c 3d 5c p p ? There is a huge difference. Partner knew, that we have sth useful in defense and offense as well. His pass should be forcing now. So we had to decide between double and 5h. If partner doubles this is an easy pass as well. With the 4H bid, it is very uncertain that pard doubles this. So that was my reasoning: Assume that the players are all experts and the pair is playing opening bids in 4th pos. which are solid. IMHO an expert would bid 3d only with the intention to bid 4h after partners sign-off (at least 80-90% of them). So pass is no LA in legal terms. Anyway: I know that IŽm offside from the main stream with my opinion. Some of my reasoning was to provoke this discussion ;-) Cheers Richard > Remember that the 4H bid is being compared to the universe of players who > thought their hand only worth an invitational bid in the first place, not the > probable majority of players who immediately bid the game. Aggressive bidders > (these were "experts") will accept any game try at IMPs that gets them to a 40% > or better game. So I think that a huge majority of the invitational bidders > would pass when partner made an in-tempo 3H sign-off, expecting that even 3H has > a reasonable chance of going down, and that game is now no better than a 1 in 3 > probability. If this evaluation is correct, and if opponents are always in 4H, > then I gain 5 IMPs both times I'm right and lose 6 IMPs the one time I'm wrong. > That's a formula for winning bridge. > > Of course, not being an expert, I would just evaluate my hand as worth a game > bid opposite a whole lot of minimum 1H bids in the first place and respond 4H. > > Norm Hostetler > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 22:00:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:57:01 +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 TAA02087 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:56:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.109] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ytBm-000G0d-00; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:56:39 +0000 Message-ID: <001401bf486c$ae6844c0$6d5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <$BRWyrBjkbW4EwfI@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:12:58 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 4:16 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > In article <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones > writes > >Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. > > > >Was the heart suit specified by the offender? > >Anne > > > > > In my opinion, not specified. Law 26B Cheers john > -- +=+ Interesting. The situation is one in which South could have a good fit in the suit (and 'wanted' to bid it). But I tend to go with John - it seems politic to let declarer defend his weakness wherever it is. Of course, with my luck it would turn out that declarer desperately wanted a lead of hearts round to his K. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 17 22:52:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:57:07 +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 TAA02092 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 19:56:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.109] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11ytBr-000G0d-00; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:56:44 +0000 Message-ID: <001501bf486c$b1c663e0$6d5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:15:57 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 1:13 AM Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards > In article <013001bf480a$041326a0$b25608c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott > writes > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Richard Bley > >To: dburn ; bridge-laws > > > >Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:07 AM > >Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards > > > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >. Before one does so, however, one might wonder what > >> the > >> opposite of "deficient" would be - that is, what single English word would > >> one > >> use to describe a hand containing too many cards? > >> > >> David Burn > >> London, England > >> > >+=+ Hmmm..... supersaturated? overweight? oversupplied? > > surfeited? > > In context the last is probably the most usable of these. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently > comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? > -- +=+ Oh, yes, of course. But I was responding to David's question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 00:17:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA02835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:17:42 +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 AAA02825 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:17:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-245.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.245]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20092 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:17:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <385A351C.7A3BA20C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:05:32 +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: Fw: 13 1/2 cards References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2D4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > This is (my) English, redundant enough to understand, though he will not be > our law-writer. Go on John and teach them. > > ton My answer to David's question would have been : "broken english". Which is as we know the official language of Bridge. > > John Probst wrote: > > > Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently > > comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? > > Perhaps one of the many polyglots on this list can answer a question > for me. In what language is the above? > > David Burn > London, England -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 00:17:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA02836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:17:43 +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 AAA02826 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:17:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-245.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.245]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20110 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:17:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <385A3638.1F3AC907@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:10:16 +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: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. > > N E S W > 1NT P 2D* 2S > 2H > > * tfr. > > TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional > bid and explains options including that there may be lead > penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. > > OK so far? > I would not have ruled conventional. North wants to play in 2He; that is not conventional. > North is now on lead and has no UI. No lead penalties. > However when South achieves the lead we have it seems the > lead penalties of L26 even tho' S has no UI other than North > would have completed the Tfr.absent the competition. > Do we apply Law26A2, specified suit not mentioned by > the same player in the legal auction, or Law 26B. > Remember that we have ruled that the 2H bid was likely > conventional. > Was the heart suit specified by the offender? > Anne I believe it was. L26A2. But I am not willing to defend my choice, this is just my opinion and I would like to see this polled and I would then follow the majority. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 01:41:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 01:41:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe38.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA03348 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 01:41:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 22078 invoked by uid 65534); 17 Dec 1999 14:40:28 -0000 Message-ID: <19991217144028.22077.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.52] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <199912170658.BAA04627@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:08:19 -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 The law specifies that becoming aware of an irregularity creates the duty to ask for a ruling and failure to do may dimish one's rights. Such happened here, the defender returned the card to his hand and declarer later sought a penalty. This failure may and can subvert what they are entitled to and in this case certainly does. Defender is not entitled 'to protection', shall we say for the knowledge to decide whether to win the trick or not once he is aware of the irregularity yet has not asked for a ruling. He has won the trick and before leading [in the hypothetical case] something is finally done about the exposed card. What has happened between the failure to summon and the ruling is water under the bridge, and being so it is certainly too difficult to go back and gather up the exact water. We do what we can but once something like what you suggest has been done we don't go about creating rights that were forfeited in order to undo it. Do you think I have got it right? cheers Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 12:58 AM Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card > > From: "Roger Pewick" > > However, note the > > effect of calling the director BEFORE defender leads to the subject trick. > > The defenders may still need protection. What if the defender might > have refused to win the trick had there been a penalty card on the > table and the implications explained? > > Is it legal for the TD to allow the defender to lead anything at the > current trick but then enforce the usual penalty card restrictions at > future tricks? This seems to offer a rough and ready justice, but I > don't think it is technically legal. > If you are speaking to the trick in question in the case, I believe that the TD was not yet around to allow or prevent the lead of anything. But when he came to be around, he should create the penalty card and hence forth it is subject to be played at the first legal opportunity, etc. What I think is subtler is the case where players make their own rulings. consider that defender left his card on the table. I would consider it to be a player ruling that it is a penalty card. What now if the player does not lead it at his first legal opportunity, or partner leads before declarer has exercised his rights? I think it is right to enforce the PC provisions even though the TD did not explain those provisions at the time of its creation. My point is that a PC is so known becaused it is left exposed on the table in front of the player. And if players are treated as if they are responsible for what they do they will be so, or will be so sooner than later. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 02:18:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 02:18:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from lisa.inter.net.il (lisa.inter.net.il [192.116.202.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA03769 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 02:18:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-3-119.access.net.il [213.8.3.119] (may be forged)) by lisa.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14026; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:18:58 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <385A5440.14F43439@zahav.net.il> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:18:24 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The OKbridge Spectator - December 1999 References: <199912040132.RAA19125@josephine.okbridge.com> <38589D0A.5EFBA940@zahav.net.il> <00c301bf47f7$e9100a60$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You never know Marv........ These days - the end of the Milleniun , Apocalipsa thoughts , etc.... anything can happen.......? ..or ?? Enjoy the game meanwhile Dany Marvin L. French wrote: > > From: Dany > > > I don't want to reopen an old and long issue , but the environment of > > okb - especially the computers-net problems - and people going to and > > fro to bring coffee , taking care of childrens etc...compell us to give > > up ' until technological devices will be able to show exactly what is > > going on. > > > > My personal opinion is that there is no chance - the running days - to > > do anything about , but players' honesty . > > My experience on OKB brought me to some astonishing surprises .... > > > > I don't believe that OKB contests or regular play can be taken into > > account of any official "ladder" , until those technological devices > > (very special !!!) will be provided. > > > I'm waiting for the time (which probably won't come for me) when one's > opponents are shown in live video, with sound, on the screen. You see and hear > them, but partners do not see or hear each other unless one is dummy. A player > is not allowed to leave the "work station" except when dummy or between deals, > or with the opponents' permission. > > Is it not currently feasible to do this sort of thing for the finals of > knockout events, doing away with the cumbersome screen contraptions? Think of > the advantages: > > -- Suspicions of cheating (or the possibility) are eliminated > -- A player gets more table feel when both opponents are in view during the > bidding and play > -- Introduction of random hesitations by the computer reduces UI problems > -- Partner's playing tempo cannot be determined > -- Auction explanations come from both opponents, and they are oral (but > recorded) > > That's off the top of my head, quickly. No doubt there are other advantages, > and perhaps some disadvantages. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 03:10:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:10:47 +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 DAA04006 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:09:10 +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 11yzw8-0004IL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:08:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 03:49:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. > >N E S W >1NT P 2D* 2S >2H > >* tfr. > >TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional >bid and explains options including that there may be lead >penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. > >OK so far? > >North is now on lead and has no UI. No lead penalties. >However when South achieves the lead we have it seems the >lead penalties of L26 even tho' S has no UI other than North >would have completed the Tfr.absent the competition. >Do we apply Law26A2, specified suit not mentioned by > the same player in the legal auction, or Law 26B. >Remember that we have ruled that the 2H bid was likely >conventional. >Was the heart suit specified by the offender? Not in my view, no. So we apply L26B. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 03:54:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:30:41 +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 DAA04087 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:30:29 +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 11z0Go-0007di-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:30:19 +0000 Message-ID: <0vm0J+B+qlW4Ew9R@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 15:46:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards In-Reply-To: <001101bf4868$053325e0$5cb701d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001101bf4868$053325e0$5cb701d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes >John Probst wrote: > >> Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently >> comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? > >Perhaps one of the many polyglots on this list can answer a question >for me. In what language is the above? > >David Burn >London, England > > that *they* couldn't possibly be used. Sorry, typo. comprehendable, well it's comprehendable to me, if not comprehensible to you. 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 Dec 18 04:03:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 04:03:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04257 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 04:03:14 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.0.7cd2bf60 (4212); Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:02:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.7cd2bf60.258bc697@aol.com> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:02:15 EST Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card To: axman22@hotmail.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 12/17/99 9:43:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, axman22@hotmail.com writes: > Do you > think I have got it right? > > cheers Yes. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 05:01:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 04:46:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from uno.minfod.com (uno.minfod.com [207.227.70.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA04503 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 04:46:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from [207.227.70.80] (helo=JNichols) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11z1Tk-0000qH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:47:44 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.19991217122727.00968890@popmid.minfod.com> X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:46:25 -0500 To: "BLML" From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:23 PM 12/16/99 , Anne Jones wrote: >Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. > >N E S W >1NT P 2D* 2S >2H > >* tfr. > >TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional >bid and explains options including that there may be lead >penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. > >OK so far? > >North is now on lead and has no UI. No lead penalties. >However when South achieves the lead we have it seems the >lead penalties of L26 even tho' S has no UI other than North >would have completed the Tfr.absent the competition. >Do we apply Law26A2, specified suit not mentioned by > the same player in the legal auction, or Law 26B. >Remember that we have ruled that the 2H bid was likely >conventional. >Was the heart suit specified by the offender? >Anne > > Law 26A says "If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and ..." The withdrawn call (2H) certainly related to Hearts. Does the fact that partner's transfer requested the heart bid change this in some way? Now, lets compare 26A1 and 26A2 26A1 -- "... if that suit was specified by the same player, there is no lead penalty, ..." 26A2 -- " ... if that suit was not specified in the legal auction by the same player, then ..." Hearts was specified by N, but not in the legal auction. For 26A to make sense, these two should cover all situations but not both cover any single situation. Here it seems that both parts cover this case. I would interpret 26A1 as including the "in the legal auction" phrase and apply 26A2. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 05:07:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:30:50 +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 DAA04090 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:30:32 +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 11z0Gp-0007dl-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:30:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 15:49:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <001401bf486c$ae6844c0$6d5408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001401bf486c$ae6844c0$6d5408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes >Grattan Endicott'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >Owing to a computer crash the Hermes PC has lost >all mail records prior to 14/12/99. >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: >Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 4:16 AM >Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > >> In article <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones >> writes >> >Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. >> > >> >Was the heart suit specified by the offender? >> >Anne >> > >> > >> In my opinion, not specified. Law 26B Cheers john >> -- >+=+ Interesting. The situation is one in which South could >have a good fit in the suit (and 'wanted' to bid it). But I >tend to go with John - it seems politic to let declarer >defend his weakness wherever it is. I felt that South might have bid 3H, with H, and so actually hasn't got H and so hasn't specified them. > Of course, with my luck it would turn out that >declarer desperately wanted a lead of hearts round to >his K. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 05:13:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 05:13:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.alltel.net (mail.alltel.net [166.102.165.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04565 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 05:13:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from alltel.net (cras36p3.navix.net [205.242.158.6]) by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id MAA17813; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:13:38 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <385A7DB7.FE3BB6C7@alltel.net> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:15:19 -0600 From: Norman Hostetler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-Alltel IS (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Bley CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss References: <00cc01bf4715$16c41de0$862b4b0c@default> <01ca01bf4722$e62667c0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> <00e601bf47ad$d6d598a0$428a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> <385951E9.E81F4FE9@alltel.net> <005201bf4878$a21abd40$e48a6386@rz.uniduesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > > 1) Both opponents are passed hands; what would the intention of a direct > > "pre-empt" be in this case? What game are they likely to make? Why would > one > > deliberately plan to overbid and risk a minus on a hand where opponents > are > > never likly to get beyond a part-score contract? The likelihood of buying > the > > contract for 3H is very high since even 4C has a high risk of failing by 2 > > tricks (one H, DK, SA, probable SK by partner who, if a balanced minimum, > will > > always have spade values, and either a S ruff or another minor suit trick > from > > partner). So ANY 4H bid must be made with the intention to make, or to > parallel > > the most likely contract at the other table(s). > > > > 2) The 4H bidder is a passed hand; opener will always assume that a hand > that > > could not open the bidding but now bids 4H has increased in value to > something > > equivalent to an opening bid. That ALWAYS means increased distributional > values > > and SOMETIMES increased honor location values, but NEVER more high card > values > > than the ceiling shown by Pass. The danger of misevaluation as a > "pre-emptive" > > raise comes when previous calls do not set a known ceiling on the hand, > such as > > when partner opens 1H in first or second chair and RHO bids 2C. > > > There are very different hands, which would be a reasonable 4H bid > immediately. > From: > > xx > Qxxxxx > xxxx > x > This hand is too rare to worry about. Partner is capped at about 19 HCP, since he didn't open 2C. So this hand exists only when partner has 16-19 HCP, and opponents have 19-22 HCP distributed so that neither could open. If we now add in the requirement that they can make 4 or 5C, or that they have a successful sac (down no more than 2) over our making 4H (unlikely in itself), we come up with the probability that you'll never see this combination in your lifetime. > > up to: > Ax > Qxxx > KQxxx > xx > I would agree 3D on this hand, if my methods allowed it, because there are a lot of 16-19 HCP 1H hands which would justify a 6H contract. I intend to cuebid the SA next. > > or the hand which was atually there. Slam will require a perfect fit. "Never bid assuming I have specific cards," Barry Crane told his partners, "because I don't have them." > > > The problem is with this approach, that pard doesnt know what to do, when he > has a very strong hand. To differentiate between this hands, it is very > useful (espec. when you are playing wide-range opening bids) to use > different ways. I don't know how you are defining "very strong." As I've indicated, in most American methods, 20+ HCP hands are opened with a forcing 2C, which is sometimes also used for highly distributional strong playing hands (for example, 9 winners in hand in a H contract). It's very plausible that partner is around 15-16 HCP on the existing auction. Opener's minimum is probably 12; overcaller probably has 10-12, so we'll say 11; we have 9; that leaves 8 HCP unaccounted for, so we'll divide them between our partner and overcaller's partner. > > > > 3) If the player "was always going to 4H anyway," then what benefit is > gained > > by bidding 3D, other than helping opponents evaluate their hands better? > We > > don't know the pair's methods or what 3D guarantees by implication, but > unless > > it is intended as an advance slam try (which I think absurd), it is almost > > certainly an invitational bid suggesting that partner needs a little more > than a > > bare minimum or a second fit in D in order to bid game. Partner has > declined > > the invitation, and the player has bid 4H anyway. Where did the "little > more" > > come from that enables him to do this? Ah, ha, the UI. Case closed. > > > Well there may be other bidding sequences, where the differences might be > reasonable. e.g.: > > p p p 1H > 2c 4h 5c ??(p) > p (??) > > Now what do you want? > Anticipating this sort of problems is the thing which experts do and > non-experts dont do. > > See the difference: > p p p 1H > 2c 3d 5c p > p ? > > There is a huge difference. Partner knew, that we have sth useful in defense > and offense as well. His pass should be forcing now. So we had to decide > between double and 5h. > > If partner doubles this is an easy pass as well. With the 4H bid, it is very > uncertain that pard doubles this. Frankly, I don't see much difference. If pard doesn't double 5C, I certainly will, and I'll always have a chance to do it. I don't think there's any dilemma about it at all. My immediate 4H call implies my general shape and shows at least moderate fitting values, or a maximum pass. If pard now bids 5H over 5C, he has unusual distribution. If he doubles, he doesn't think we can make 5H, despite our big fit, or he's certain that 5C is going for a big number. Otherwise, he passes to me, and I double. Now he knows my values are prime, but that I probably expect 2 C losers in H. He can act accordingly. I thought the most likely result at 4C was down 2, so now I believe I have them down 3, maybe more. If we can only beat 5C by 2, making 4H becomes unlikely, so I'm still ahead. > > > So that was my reasoning: > Assume that the players are all experts and the pair is playing opening bids > in 4th pos. which are solid. IMHO an expert would bid 3d only with the > intention to bid 4h after partners sign-off (at least 80-90% of them). So > pass is no LA in legal terms. I have come up with one possible constructive use of 3D--lead directing. But I'm on opening lead if we're defending a club contract. And my D suit is not one where I'm expecting to establish a lot of tricks. Do you suppose that the actual bid was something like a help suit game try, asking for high card strength or shortness in D? If so, pass over 3H again. Otherwise, RHO leads from D QJ(xx) toward his partner's A, and we lose the first 2 D tricks; back comes a C through pard's KJ(x), and down goes the contract. > > > Anyway: > I know that IŽm offside from the main stream with my opinion. Some of my > reasoning was to provoke this discussion ;-) > > Cheers > Richard We may need a 3rd party to look for the self-serving statements in our own positions! But if I were a floor director in a room full of experts at an NABC open championship (and I have been on a few occasions), and more queries about the pair's methods did not cause me to revise the assumptions in my analysis, I would have no hesitation recommending a roll-back to 3H. > > > > Remember that the 4H bid is being compared to the universe of players who > > thought their hand only worth an invitational bid in the first place, not > the > > probable majority of players who immediately bid the game. Aggressive > bidders > > (these were "experts") will accept any game try at IMPs that gets them to > a 40% > > or better game. So I think that a huge majority of the invitational > bidders > > would pass when partner made an in-tempo 3H sign-off, expecting that even > 3H has > > a reasonable chance of going down, and that game is now no better than a 1 > in 3 > > probability. If this evaluation is correct, and if opponents are always > in 4H, > > then I gain 5 IMPs both times I'm right and lose 6 IMPs the one time I'm > wrong. > > That's a formula for winning bridge. > > > > Of course, not being an expert, I would just evaluate my hand as worth a > game > > bid opposite a whole lot of minimum 1H bids in the first place and respond > 4H. > > > > Norm Hostetler > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 05:56:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:18:53 +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 DAA04040 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:18:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:18:08 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA26671 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:14:00 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:03:21 +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 Herman De Wael wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. >> >> N E S W >> 1NT P 2D* 2S >> 2H >> >> * tfr. >> >> TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional >> bid and explains options including that there may be lead >> penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. >> >> OK so far? >> > >I would not have ruled conventional. >North wants to play in 2He; that is not conventional. Who says that North wants to play 2H? North makes a (more or less) mandatory bid and does not show anything about his hand; neither the wish to play 2H, nor the wish to play something else. >> North is now on lead and has no UI. No lead penalties. >> However when South achieves the lead we have it seems the >> lead penalties of L26 even tho' S has no UI other than North >> would have completed the Tfr.absent the competition. >> Do we apply Law26A2, specified suit not mentioned by >> the same player in the legal auction, or Law 26B. >> Remember that we have ruled that the 2H bid was likely >> conventional. >> Was the heart suit specified by the offender? >> Anne > >I believe it was. L26A2. >But I am not willing to defend my choice, this is just my >opinion and I would like to see this polled and I would then >follow the majority. I believe it was not. The 2H-bidder can theoretically have anything from 0 to 6 hearts (well, 0, 1, 6 and maybe 5 are probably extremely unlikely in view of the 1NT-opening bid). He makes no statement about the number of hearts he holds. That means L26B in my opinion. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 06:02:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:30:41 +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 DAA04088 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:30:31 +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 11z0Gq-0007di-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:30:21 +0000 Message-ID: <2MAEhTCkTmW4Ewul@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:29:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card In-Reply-To: <19991217144028.22077.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <19991217144028.22077.qmail@hotmail.com>, Roger Pewick writes >The law specifies that becoming aware of an irregularity creates the duty to >ask for a ruling and failure to do may dimish one's rights. Such happened >here, the defender returned the card to his hand and declarer later sought a >penalty. This failure may and can subvert what they are entitled to and >in this case certainly does. Defender is not entitled 'to protection', >shall we say for the knowledge to decide whether to win the trick or not >once he is aware of the irregularity yet has not asked for a ruling. He has >won the trick and before leading [in the hypothetical case] something is >finally done about the exposed card. What has happened between the failure >to summon and the ruling is water under the bridge, and being so it is >certainly too difficult to go back and gather up the exact water. We do >what we can but once something like what you suggest has been done we don't >go about creating rights that were forfeited in order to undo it. Do you >think I have got it right? > When this thread started I did not have a view. But it seems that Roger has nailed it down well here. [This sentence is for Grattan (pace Grattan) and David Burn only] I presently attain the abstraction that abstaining from obtaining the arbiter at the apposite instant represents an abject abrogation of ones rights. [Mind you I'd love to know just what language this is written in] or as Kojak might say (pace Kojak) If you don't call the Director when you should, how do you expect him to rule in your favOr. 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 Dec 18 06:17:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 06:17:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04712 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 06:17:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:16:51 -0800 Message-ID: <01c801bf48c3$1868b0c0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <385A3638.1F3AC907@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:15:25 -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 From: Herman De Wael > Anne Jones wrote: > > > > Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. > > > > N E S W > > 1NT P 2D* 2S > > 2H > > > > * tfr. > > > > TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional > > bid and explains options including that there may be lead > > penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. > > > > OK so far? > > > > I would not have ruled conventional. > North wants to play in 2He; that is not conventional. > > > North is now on lead and has no UI. No lead penalties. > > However when South achieves the lead we have it seems the > > lead penalties of L26 even tho' S has no UI other than North > > would have completed the Tfr.absent the competition. > > Do we apply Law26A2, specified suit not mentioned by > > the same player in the legal auction, or Law 26B. > > Remember that we have ruled that the 2H bid was likely > > conventional. > > Was the heart suit specified by the offender? > > Anne > > I believe it was. L26A2. > But I am not willing to defend my choice, this is just my > opinion and I would like to see this polled and I would then > follow the majority. > 2D is a conventional bid, but 2H conveys a willingness to play in hearts, and is therefore not conventional according to DEFINITIONS. If 2H was a required call, and North did not notice the 2S bid, then the heart suit was not specified by North, who must bid hearts even with a singleton. If 2H was a free bid, North noticing the 2S bid but absent-mindedly not bidding high enough (doubtful, in view of the pass), or if 2H was not a required bid (also doubtful), then 2H would specifiy the suit, IMO. It depends on the definition of "specify," but in this context I interpret it in such a way as to say that South has specified hearts, but North has not. The lawmakers could have used the word "bid" in L26 if "specify" means "bid." Perhaps "specify" should be included in DEFINITIONS. I don't see any UI from the 2H bid if it would have been forced over a pass by West. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 07:59:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA04970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 07:59:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA04964 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 07:59:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:59:24 -0800 Message-ID: <020101bf48d1$692ec220$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:57:07 -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: > Anne Jones wrote: > >Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. > > > >N E S W > >1NT P 2D* 2S > >2H > > > >* tfr. > > > >TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional > >bid and explains options including that there may be lead > >penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. I believe North must pass, per L27B2. > > > >OK so far? > > > >North is now on lead and has no UI. No lead penalties. > >However when South achieves the lead we have it seems the > >lead penalties of L26 even tho' S has no UI other than North > >would have completed the Tfr.absent the competition. > >Do we apply Law26A2, specified suit not mentioned by > > the same player in the legal auction, or Law 26B. > >Remember that we have ruled that the 2H bid was likely > >conventional. > >Was the heart suit specified by the offender? > > Not in my view, no. So we apply L26B. > But the 2H bid was "related" to a specific suit, hearts. L26B (Other Withdrawn Calls) applies to calls that are unrelated to a specific suit, i.e., notrump bids, suit bids unrelated to a specific suit (e.g., artificial strong 2C opening), doubles, redoubles, and passes. So we look at L26A. Not L26A1, since hearts were specified by South, not by North. That leaves 26A2, if anything. However, I would rule that L26 does not apply at all. It was obviously intended for the withdrawal of "real" calls, not forced calls that convey zero information. Sometimes a TD has to interpret a law's intent when there is no LC member around to help. Imposing a lead penalty in this case is too revolting to consider if there is a way to avoid it. I don't see that the withdrawn 2H bid or the substituted pass created any UI, so no harm no foul. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 08:09:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA04995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:09:36 +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 IAA04990 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:09:28 +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 11z4cn-0002f7-00; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 22:09:17 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA057364957; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 22:09:17 +0100 Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 22:09:16 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "Martin Sinot" at Dec 17, 1999 05:03:21 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 Martin Sinot: > >Herman De Wael wrote: > >>Anne Jones wrote: >>> >>> Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. >>> >>> N E S W >>> 1NT P 2D* 2S >>> 2H >>> >>> * tfr. >>> >>> TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional >>> bid and explains options including that there may be lead >>> penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. >>> >>> OK so far? >>> >> >>I would not have ruled conventional. >>North wants to play in 2He; that is not conventional. > >Who says that North wants to play 2H? North makes a >(more or less) mandatory bid and does not show anything >about his hand; neither the wish to play 2H, nor the >wish to play something else. N decided not to bid 3H. I think this shows that N does not hold 4 or 5 hearts. Probably only two. This then implies that the meaning of 2H was not 'I have a bunch of hearts'. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 08:10:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:10:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (mta@proxyb1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05004 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:10:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:05:52 -0800 Message-ID: <020d01bf48d2$509c0f00$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0vm0J+B+qlW4Ew9R@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:04:03 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: John (MadDog) Probst David Burn writes > >John Probst wrote: > > > >> Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently > >> comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? > > > >Perhaps one of the many polyglots on this list can answer a question > >for me. In what language is the above? > > > >David Burn > >London, England > > > > > that *they* couldn't possibly be used. Sorry, typo. > > comprehendable, well it's comprehendable to me, if not comprehensible to > you. chs john > -- Thanks for the clarification, John. But why just 2 few cards? :)) Picking on little mistakes like this is poor netiquette, but sometimes one can't resist. I think John can take it. Marv (Marvin L. French) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 08:32:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:32:32 +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 IAA05053 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 08:32:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11z4z0-000CM9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 21:32:14 +0000 Message-ID: <007b01bf48d6$3c90ff80$665408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <0vm0J+B+qlW4Ew9R@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 20:44:16 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott >John Probst wrote: > > > >> Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently > >> comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? > > > >Perhaps one of the many polyglots on this list can answer a question > >for me. In what language is the above? > > > >David Burn > >London, England > > +=+ In comprehensible ? +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 10:14:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:14:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05364 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:14:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11z6ZT-000Ekx-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 23:13:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:23:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards References: <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl> <3859F951.D0FE917E@omicron.comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <3859F951.D0FE917E@omicron.comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >David Stevenson pressed the following keys: >> >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >In article <3857539E.A4B60374@omicron.comarch.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski >> > writes >> >> >> I guess this means you want to adjust A(+/-) or so. >> > >> >Yep, no choice >> > >> >> What if a card is missing? Would you then also ingore >> >>L14 and apply L1? >> >> >> >> >> >Law 14 provides for a 51 card pack, so I can apply it. There is no law >> >to provide for a 53 card deck so I use Law 12A1 >> >> Law 13? > > I don't thinks so. > >LAW 13 - INCORRECT NUMBER OF CARDS >When the Director determines that one or more pockets >of the board contained an incorrect number of cards... > > > All pockets contained the right number of cards. >It's just the declarer who picked up some stuff >from the floor and added it to his hand. I think >the Ton Kooijman's approach is right but I doubt >he will add this sentence to his sig :) I don't disagree. I was merely answering John's question as he stated rather than the original query. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 18 10:14:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:14:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05365 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:14:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11z6ZT-000Ekz-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 23:14:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:50:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card References: <199912170658.BAA04627@cfa183.harvard.edu> <19991217144028.22077.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19991217144028.22077.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >The law specifies that becoming aware of an irregularity creates the duty to >ask for a ruling and failure to do may dimish one's rights. Such happened >here, the defender returned the card to his hand and declarer later sought a >penalty. This failure may and can subvert what they are entitled to and >in this case certainly does. Defender is not entitled 'to protection', >shall we say for the knowledge to decide whether to win the trick or not >once he is aware of the irregularity yet has not asked for a ruling. He has >won the trick and before leading [in the hypothetical case] something is >finally done about the exposed card. What has happened between the failure >to summon and the ruling is water under the bridge, and being so it is >certainly too difficult to go back and gather up the exact water. We do >what we can but once something like what you suggest has been done we don't >go about creating rights that were forfeited in order to undo it. Do you >think I have got it right? No, because L11A was created for this position. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 10:45:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:45:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05449 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:44:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn2p34.ozemail.com.au [210.84.9.98]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA29358 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:44:52 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991218104740.009fb7c0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:47:40 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards In-Reply-To: <0vm0J+B+qlW4Ew9R@probst.demon.co.uk> References: <001101bf4868$053325e0$5cb701d5@davidburn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:46 PM 17/12/99 +0000, you wrote: >In article <001101bf4868$053325e0$5cb701d5@davidburn>, David Burn > writes >>John Probst wrote: >> >>> Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently >>> comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? >> >>Perhaps one of the many polyglots on this list can answer a question >>for me. In what language is the above? >> >>David Burn >>London, England >> >> >that *they* couldn't possibly be used. Sorry, typo. > >comprehendable, well it's comprehendable to me, if not comprehensible to >you. 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 > > I think we are still worried about "two" in two few cards, Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 10:54:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:14:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05366 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:14:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11z6ZY-000El4-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 23:14:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:25:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards References: <001101bf4868$053325e0$5cb701d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001101bf4868$053325e0$5cb701d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >John Probst wrote: > >> Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently >> comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? > >Perhaps one of the many polyglots on this list can answer a question >for me. In what language is the above? For those of you who have struggled through Richard Probst's posts on RGB, now we see where he gets his command of the English language from ..... :) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 11:39:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:39:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05664 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:39:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11z7u4-000F6h-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:39:21 +0000 Message-ID: <5313$WCzdtW4EwdD@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:38:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards In-Reply-To: <020d01bf48d2$509c0f00$d5075e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <020d01bf48d2$509c0f00$d5075e18@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes snip >> -- >Thanks for the clarification, John. But why just 2 few cards? :)) > >Picking on little mistakes like this is poor netiquette, but >sometimes one can't resist. I think John can take it. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) > sounds of gurgling and lavatory flushing. O shame, o shame, o shame. -- 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 Dec 18 11:54:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:14:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05377 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:14:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11z6ZT-000Eky-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 23:14:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:49:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card References: <199912170658.BAA04627@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199912170658.BAA04627@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: "Roger Pewick" >> However, note the >> effect of calling the director BEFORE defender leads to the subject trick. > >The defenders may still need protection. What if the defender might >have refused to win the trick had there been a penalty card on the >table and the implications explained? > >Is it legal for the TD to allow the defender to lead anything at the >current trick but then enforce the usual penalty card restrictions at >future tricks? This seems to offer a rough and ready justice, but I >don't think it is technically legal. In my view experienced players often leave penalty cards on the table without benefit of the Director and seem to know what they are doing. Not only would a Director not generally object [citing L10B] but likely he would not hear about it anyway! However, a player has a right to be told the Law. Even good and/or experienced players make horrendous errors where the Laws are concerned. When a card is put back in the player's hand after being exposed by a defender it is a penalty card - see L49. The action of taking it back makes no difference. Thus, the penalties embodied in L50 apply. Is this fair? Not really. The players have a right granted by L9B2 to know what the penalties are. Suppose the partner of a holder of a MPC gets on lead: there are lead penalties. The defence had a right to know that *in advance* and then they could have defended differently so as to avoid or reduce the effect of the penalties. Some have suggested that when the Director was finally summoned that he does not allow the penalties to be applied to that trick but to subsequent ones. That is a nonsense: the defence may have had a chance earlier to minimise the effects of the penalties which is now lost: they are still suffering from the Director not being called to the table at the right time. Of course, everyone should have called the Director so that you could argue that everyone is at fault. However, normal custom and practice in bridge is for the NOs to call the Director, and if they expect or hope to gain from penalising the Os then they surely must call the Director if the NOs do not. There is an obvious advantage to a declarer not to call the Director when a player puts an exposed card back in his hand: it seems likely that he is unaware of the requirements of a penalty card, and thus the declarer will have a good chance of gaining from his opponents' ignorance. Not only does this seem unfair to me, but more importantly it seems unfair to the lawmakers, and L11A was written to cover this situation. The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. A member of the NOs has taken action [by playing on] so the right to penalise "may" be forfeited. The NOs seems to be gaining because of their opponents' ignorance so no penalty is applied. In the given situation, I read L11A to the players, and for good measure I read L9B1A and L9B2. Then I tell them there is no penalty and that includes that the penalty card need not be put on the table. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 13:35:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:35:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05897 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:34:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11z9hZ-000OuO-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 02:34:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 01:01:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <020101bf48d1$692ec220$d5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <020101bf48d1$692ec220$d5075e18@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: >So we look at L26A. Not L26A1, since hearts were specified by >South, not by North. That leaves 26A2, if anything. > >However, I would rule that L26 does not apply at all. It was >obviously intended for the withdrawal of "real" calls, not forced >calls that convey zero information. Sometimes a TD has to >interpret a law's intent when there is no LC member around to >help. Imposing a lead penalty in this case is too revolting to >consider if there is a way to avoid it. > >I don't see that the withdrawn 2H bid or the substituted pass >created any UI, so no harm no foul. That is not your decision, Marv, but the Law-makers. You have no right not to apply L26 - see L12B. While the intent of the Law-makers may be for Laws such as L26 to apply to relieve UI problems, it may not have been. It is a penalty to be applied - and that's that. It does not need an LC member since there is no decision: L26 applies, and no competent TD would ever not apply it in such a situation. Sure, it may not be obvious which part of the Law applies, but it is obvious that L26 applies. It is never right for people to think they are above the Law. There have been cases of ACs thinking this - there was a case at the last NABC but one where the Committee effectively said they were making a decision despite the Law - but this must be stamped out. This is not a perfect game, and the Laws are not perfect. We can decide interpretations where there is doubt: we can try and change incorrect Laws: we can have arguments and discussions to try to explain the Laws: but at the end, the Laws are paramount, and any TD who does not think so should be dismissed, and any AC member likewise should not be used again - or not until the TD or AC member has been re-trained. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 18 17:28:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 17:28:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe31.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA06322 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 17:28:45 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 21843 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Dec 1999 06:28:07 -0000 Message-ID: <19991218062807.21842.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.17] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <199912170658.BAA04627@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:28:10 -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: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 11:49 AM Subject: Re: A penalty is always a penalty card > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: "Roger Pewick" > >> However, note the > >> effect of calling the director BEFORE defender leads to the subject trick. > > > >The defenders may still need protection. What if the defender might > >have refused to win the trick had there been a penalty card on the > >table and the implications explained? > > > >Is it legal for the TD to allow the defender to lead anything at the > >current trick but then enforce the usual penalty card restrictions at > >future tricks? This seems to offer a rough and ready justice, but I > >don't think it is technically legal. > > In my view experienced players often leave penalty cards on the table > without benefit of the Director and seem to know what they are doing. > Not only would a Director not generally object [citing L10B] but likely > he would not hear about it anyway! > > However, a player has a right to be told the Law. Even good and/or > experienced players make horrendous errors where the Laws are concerned. > > When a card is put back in the player's hand after being exposed by a > defender it is a penalty card - see L49. The action of taking it back > makes no difference. Thus, the penalties embodied in L50 apply. but I read L50D2 which says that when an exposed card is not a PC it is returned to the hand. And then I read L50A which says that a PC must be faced on the table. In the case the exposed card was returned to the hand and it did not remain faced on the table. > Is this fair? Not really. The players have a right granted by L9B2 > to know what the penalties are. And it seems fair that they subvert that right until they in fact excercise it. I am beginning to think that this is the appropriate view. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > David Stevenson From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 21:33:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:33:34 +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 VAA06676 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:33:26 +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 BAA08547 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 01:34:10 -0900 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 01:33:56 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Martin Sinot wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Anne Jones wrote: > >> > >> Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. > >> > >> N E S W > >> 1NT P 2D* 2S > >> 2H > >> > >> * tfr. > >> > >> TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional > >> bid and explains options including that there may be lead > >> penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. > >> > >> OK so far? > >> > > > >I would not have ruled conventional. > >North wants to play in 2He; that is not conventional. > > Who says that North wants to play 2H? North makes a > (more or less) mandatory bid and does not show anything > about his hand; neither the wish to play 2H, nor the > wish to play something else. Convention: A call that , by partnership understanding, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named, or high-card strength or length there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. 2H conveys no meaning other than a willingness to play 2H. (Not enthusiasm, mind you.) Incontrovertibly not conventional, far as I am concerned. But, since North didn't elect to bid 3H, we are in Law 26 territory anyway. [If North has a good argument that he would have bid 3H had the director correctly informed him he could do so without penalty now we are at 82C.] Should South eventually gain the lead, I would use 26A1, related to hearts. I am marginally sympathetic to those who argue 2H isn't related to anything. Marginally. --- As I stare at the definition of a convention, I am struck by a slightly troubling thought. It looks suspiciously like a call that conveys no distributional information whatsoever, but does specify overall strength, appears not to be a convention. For example, the currently-disallowed Herbert negative to a forcing-but-not-strong 1D opening under the ACBL GCC. Comments? (Perhaps those bent on civil disobedience would like to play this "convention" in an ACBL event and make the director read the definition of convention alound when he is summoned?) Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 21:36:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:36:18 +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 VAA06696 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:36:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-39.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.39]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09022 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:36:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <385B5ED3.8176647E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:15:47 +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: A penalty is always a penalty card References: <199912170658.BAA04627@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I generally agree with what David Stevenson wrote: > > > In my view experienced players often leave penalty cards on the table > without benefit of the Director and seem to know what they are doing. > Not only would a Director not generally object [citing L10B] but likely > he would not hear about it anyway! > > However, a player has a right to be told the Law. Even good and/or > experienced players make horrendous errors where the Laws are concerned. > > When a card is put back in the player's hand after being exposed by a > defender it is a penalty card - see L49. The action of taking it back > makes no difference. Thus, the penalties embodied in L50 apply. > > Is this fair? Not really. The players have a right granted by L9B2 > to know what the penalties are. Suppose the partner of a holder of a > MPC gets on lead: there are lead penalties. The defence had a right to > know that *in advance* and then they could have defended differently so > as to avoid or reduce the effect of the penalties. > > Some have suggested that when the Director was finally summoned that > he does not allow the penalties to be applied to that trick but to > subsequent ones. That is a nonsense: the defence may have had a chance > earlier to minimise the effects of the penalties which is now lost: they > are still suffering from the Director not being called to the table at > the right time. > > Of course, everyone should have called the Director so that you could > argue that everyone is at fault. However, normal custom and practice in > bridge is for the NOs to call the Director, and if they expect or hope > to gain from penalising the Os then they surely must call the Director > if the NOs do not. > > There is an obvious advantage to a declarer not to call the Director > when a player puts an exposed card back in his hand: it seems likely > that he is unaware of the requirements of a penalty card, and thus the > declarer will have a good chance of gaining from his opponents' > ignorance. Not only does this seem unfair to me, but more importantly > it seems unfair to the lawmakers, and L11A was written to cover this > situation. > > The right to penalise an irregularity > may be forfeited if either member of the > non-offending side takes any action > before summoning the Director. The > Director so rules when the non-offending > side may have gained through subsequent > action taken by an opponent in ignorance > of the penalty. > > A member of the NOs has taken action [by playing on] so the right to > penalise "may" be forfeited. The NOs seems to be gaining because of > their opponents' ignorance so no penalty is applied. > > In the given situation, I read L11A to the players, and for good > measure I read L9B1A and L9B2. Until his last sentence : > Then I tell them there is no penalty and > that includes that the penalty card need not be put on the table. > That is not fair. There is a penalty card, and there should be a ruling on that. I draw the line somewhere like : If the player has picked up his card, and opponent now wants to see it played in a trick in process - no go. Opponent should have at least objected to the card being picked up. If the player leaves the card on the table, I allow opponent to assume that the player knows it has to be played, so if he doesn't, I will rule accordingly. If the partner gets the lead, and leads to the trick, and now declarer calls me, I tell him it's too late. if the partner gets the lead, and now declarer calls, I rule. I am not overly concerned with opponents who do not call, and now see themselves subjected to lead restrictions because declarer does know the rules. If they are inexperienced enough not to know of lead restrictions, and don't call the director, they may well also be weak enough not to realise to duck a particular trick so as to avoid the lead restrictions. I would not allow a declarer to allow defenders to play on without calling for the penalty card restrictions and then call on them when the time seems ripe. But that's as far as I interpret the MAY in L11A. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 18 21:36:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:36:20 +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 VAA06697 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:36:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-39.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.39]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09026 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:36:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <385B60CD.8D8C299B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:24:13 +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: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > > > > >I believe it was. L26A2. > >But I am not willing to defend my choice, this is just my > >opinion and I would like to see this polled and I would then > >follow the majority. > > I believe it was not. The 2H-bidder can theoretically have > anything from 0 to 6 hearts (well, 0, 1, 6 and maybe 5 are > probably extremely unlikely in view of the 1NT-opening bid). > He makes no statement about the number of hearts he holds. > That means L26B in my opinion. > That seems to be the majority view. Hearts were not specified, so L26B. However, what about 2He being conventional. I still don't think it would be. Would you consider 3He in this auction conventional? I think both show a willingness to play in the strain, and I don't believe any point range makes any call conventional. Could we agree on the following ruling : 1NT - P - 2Di - 2Sp 2He Not conventional, correction to 3He allowed. 3He - 3Sp - 4He - 4Sp All pass. L26B - 2He not related to a suit, lead restrictions on all suits ? Of course since it's 26B, the repeating of hearts does not change a thing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 01:51:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 01:51:59 +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 BAA07326 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 01:51:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from pc9s02a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.162.202] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11zLCO-0000CE-00; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 06:51:09 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Cc: "Steve Webb" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 14:54:56 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf4967$d94e26e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Saturday, December 18, 1999 10:55 AM Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? > >As I stare at the definition of a convention, I am struck by a slightly >troubling thought. It looks suspiciously like a call that conveys no >distributional information whatsoever, but does specify overall strength, >appears not to be a convention. For example, the currently-disallowed >Herbert negative to a forcing-but-not-strong 1D opening under the ACBL >GCC. Comments? (Perhaps those bent on civil disobedience would like to >play this "convention" in an ACBL event and make the director read the >definition of convention alound when he is summoned?) I have been surprised to see so many suggest that the completion of a transfer is not a conventional call. In UK it is alertable because it does not promise at least 3 cards in the suit. Others have quoted the Law Book definition of a convention but not in its entirety. Convention — 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender’s play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. I notice the words "or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. (The word there indicates we are not talking about overall strength. The completion of a transfer shows neither so by definition is a conventional call. Law27(2) says "If either the insufficient bid, or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional etc.," so I would consider that the 2H bid is certainly conventional, but would only rule that 3H is conventional if the partnership agreement is that the intervention be ignored and the transfer be completed come hell or high water. Usually the 3H bid would not be conventional because the breaking of a transfer to most players of by experience shows four card support and a maximum 1NT. It does not matter however in this case as the first bid fits the bill. South is silenced. My problem was to decide whether or not the bid 2H, relates to the specific suit. No consensus, but a majority seem to say it does not. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 05:15:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA08018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 05:15:13 +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 FAA08003 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 05:15:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17619 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:14:47 +0100 Received: from ip193.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.193), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb17613; Sat Dec 18 19:14:42 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:14:42 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <0jjn5skd5alhandnkr60p5nap3c7da4fg3@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: 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 FAA08006 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:41:22 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >>When we are adjusting, MI is no problem in itself, since we are >>adjusting based on full knowledge. But a missing alert seems to >>me to then be equivalent to a mannerism: if N had looked >>distinctly happy or unhappy with the situation before passing, >>would you not allow that hesitation to be used (assuming it could >>be used, of course - the example is bad) by E even when >>adjusting? > > Not really: the mannerism is based on the problem that is not going to >be there? The example is bad, as I said. But yes, NS has the problem that N does not know his system. This will lead to N passing, on which we definitely base the adjustment. I.e., after N's pass, I am sure that we agree that EW are allowed to know that NS has a misunderstanding. It will also unavoidably lead to N not alerting, from which EW may be able to guess that there is a misunderstanding. This is AI which is available to EW just as much as the (later) pass is, and I think it should be considered when adjusting. > I think the analogy is confusing. I do not see that an adjustment >should be based on MI and correct explanation simultaneously. I do not see why EW should be put in a worse situation than the one they would be in if W had happened to see the words "Reverse Drury" on the CC beforehand. It seems most logical to me to base the adjustment on an imagined situation in which EW knows the NS system beforehand and the board is then played with the alerts/non-alerts that must follow from NS's misunderstanding. See also my reply to Herman. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 05:15:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA08017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 05:15:13 +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 FAA08002 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 05:15:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17620 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:14:48 +0100 Received: from ip193.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.193), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdc17613; Sat Dec 18 19:14:43 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:14:43 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> <3854F2BD.F20A1174@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3854F2BD.F20A1174@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 FAA08005 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:21:01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> If it is considered likely that W would choose to pass when N >> does not alert 2C, then we should adjust based on that. >> > >No we should not. We should ask what would have happened >had N alerted, and explained correctly. If N had alerted and explained correctly then he would not have passed, so that is definitely not the whole answer. N does not know his system. There is therefore a risk for NS that N will do something to make EW aware that N does not know his system, and that EW can take advantage of that. In this case, N does this twice: once by not alerting and once by passing. Why should the one be considered information available for EW when we adjust, but the other not? They are both physical actions which happened at the table and would necessarily happen when N did not know his system. >If he has read the CC and knows that 2C is Drury, then the >fact that North does not alert is AI to him, and so he is >allowed to pass, but in the abstract case, we do not need to >give him the two pieces of information. Why not? He would have those two pieces of information in real life. But I agree that if they were playing without alert rules, and W had asked N, then we would not give him that information, since there would be no question if W knew the system. An alert is different from a question: it automatically happens or does not happen, regardless of whether anybody needs to ask. >I believe that this is a very classical type of ruling, >which we often encounter, and of which I do not believe I an >the only one to solve it thusly. Well, you do seem to have David and the EBU on your side this time... But it is interesting that there has never before been a BLML case where our different views of this actually made a difference. >> And now for a slightly different hypothetical case: >> >> What if W actually _had_ known NS's system and therefore had >> passed, and it then turned out that N knew his system perfectly >> well, he had just forgotten to alert? >> > >Well, the failure to alert is AI to him, but he cannot blame >redress for following this. If he tells the story, he >cannot ask for a ruling on MI, since he did know. >North has mislead, but without malicious intent. >The only possible Law would be L73F2, but I don't see how N >could have known that not alerting could work in his >benefit, since any non-alerting should work in his >detriment. > >> It seems obvious to me that W's choice of pass is then at his own >> risk, and that he should get no redress if he ends up with a >> worse score than the one that would result from doubling 2C. He >> is entitled to know NS's system, not to know whether N has >> forgotten his system. In other words, I do not believe that >> forgetting to alert is a mannerism that can result in a L73F2 >> adjustment when opponents are not actually misled about the >> meaning of the call. > >indeed - I should have read on before answering and spending >5 minutes RTFLBing attempting to find L73F2. > >However, Jesper, you correctly write that W is entitled to >know the system, but not that N has forgotten it. Then why >do you side with Adam above ? Because W is entitled only to know the system, and that there was no alert. He may then guess correctly that the reason for the missing alert is that N has forgotten his system, or he may not. If he actually plays the hand knowing NS's system, then the reason for the non-alert is his own guess, he is not damaged by MI, and he keeps his score. When we give an adjusted score in the MI situation, we give EW the best result "that was likely ...", so if it is likely that he would correctly guess the reason for the non-alert and take advantage of it by passing, then we should adjust based on that. He is not entitled to _know_ that there is a misunderstanding, but he is entitled to know that there was no alert and to make a guess based on that. And when we adjust, we help him guess correctly because he is the non-offending side. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 05:15:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA08020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 05:15:14 +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 FAA08004 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 05:15:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17618 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:14:47 +0100 Received: from ip193.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.193), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda17613; Sat Dec 18 19:14:41 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: 13 1/2 cards Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:14:41 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <001101bf4868$053325e0$5cb701d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001101bf4868$053325e0$5cb701d5@davidburn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id FAA08007 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:23:37 -0000, "David Burn" wrote: >John Probst wrote: > >> Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently >> comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? > >Perhaps one of the many polyglots on this list can answer a question >for me. In what language is the above? A language that is easier to understand than that of L13 and L14 :-) Let us get more simple words into the laws! I've just realized that the wording "one or more pockets of the board" in L13 should logically mean that L13 applies in at least some circumstances where only one pocket has an incorrect number of cards. Since this is consistent with the fact that L14 seems not to consider the 53-card hand, it seems to me that "deficient" here should mean "too few cards". -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 08:20:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 08:20:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08596 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 08:20:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA26067 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:21:00 -0900 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:20:46 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <01bf4967$d94e26e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id IAA08597 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Anne Jones wrote: > I have been surprised to see so many suggest that the completion of a > transfer is not a conventional call. In UK it is alertable because it does > not > promise at least 3 cards in the suit. I certainly agree that it doesn't promise 3 cards, and that it is alertable under the UK rules. And conventional or not, such things as the forced Lebensohl 3C rebid or 1C-1D negative are certainly alerts. > Others have quoted the Law Book definition of a convention but not in its > entirety. > > Convention — 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a > meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named > (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length > (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall > strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender’s play that > serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. > > I notice the words "or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > there. (The word there indicates we are not talking about overall strength. > The completion of a transfer shows neither so by definition is a > conventional call. Apparently we are parsing the rather long-winded first sentence of the definition differently. A call can show a willingness to play in the denomination, or high-card strength in it, or length in it, or two of these at once, or all three of these at once, and not be a convention, unless it carries an additional message. If it carries such additional message (other than an agreement as to overall strength), it is conventional. If it doesn't carry such additional message (and 2H doesn't), the definition does not explicitly say. The mathematician in me regards the definition as a constructive one: "here is a a condition that must be met to be labelled a convention; anything that doesn't meet this condition isn't one." If nothing else, this gives us a workable criterion for deciding whether a given call is a convention. If the lawmakers had wanted to make all of these "doesn't carry a message" calls conventional, the definition could have read "Any call except ___" instead of "Any call conveying a meaning other than ___." I prefer to think there is a reason they chose the wording they did. I also find it untenable to decide case-by-case whether these calls are conventional as suits our whim at the time. I guess there is a choice to be made. My reading of the definition makes rather a lot of not-natural bids not conventional. (ex: weak 2H opening, natural 2S response; if opener's 2NT rebid shows 3 spades and a maximum weak two, the only meaning is length in the last denomination named, and overall strength, so 2NT is not conventional.) I am happy to accept this. Such calls would all still be alertable/disclosable - just not subject to banning at the whim of SOs. What, you may ask, will I do, if the auction goes 2H-Pass-2S-3C-2NT? I allow a correction to 3NT without automatically barring responder. But I still read them law 16, there will be lead penalties against spades unless opener later bids them, and if the non-offenders are damaged by the fact that responder wasn't barred, there is always 84E. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 08:53:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 08:53:30 +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 IAA08687 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 08:53:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA04160; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 16:53:11 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <385B60CD.8D8C299B@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 16:42:01 -0500 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:24 AM +0100 12/18/99, Herman De Wael wrote: >Could we agree on the following ruling : > >1NT - P - 2Di - 2Sp >2He > >Not conventional, correction to 3He allowed. This depends on agreements. If the 2H bid (absent intervention) denies four hearts, is it conventional? (Many players play this way; opener must bid 3H with four hearts and a minimum on LoTT principles, and make a game try with four hearts and a maximum.) Whether or not it is conventional, it now relates to hearts (denying values), and thus if it is withdrawn, the lead penalty is governed by L26A. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 13:14:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:14:03 +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 NAA09340 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:13:54 +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 VAA21103 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:13:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA07093 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:14:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:14:02 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912190214.VAA07093@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Bower > I certainly agree that it doesn't promise 3 cards, and that it is > alertable under the UK rules. And conventional or not, such things as the > forced Lebensohl 3C rebid or 1C-1D negative are certainly alerts. It's my understanding that the UK alert rules rely on a specific definition of "natural" that is not the same as the inverse of the Laws' definition of conventional. Calls can thus be any of the four combinations of natural or not and conventional or not. > > Convention — 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a > > meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named > > (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length > > (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall > > strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender’s play that > > serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. > A call can show a willingness to play in the denomination, or high-card > strength in it, or length in it, or two of these at once, or all three of > these at once, and not be a convention, unless it carries an additional > message. > If it carries such additional message (other than an agreement as to > overall strength), it is conventional. I agree with this. The key is the presence or absence of an additional message, not whether the call does or does not carry one or more of the listed meanings. > The mathematician in me regards the definition as a constructive one: I'm not sure about the technical meaning of "constructive," but I think we reach the same conclusion. If a call fits the definition, i.e. carries a meaning not among the ones listed, it is conventional, and if it carries no such meaning, it isn't. > I guess there is a choice to be made. My reading of the definition makes > rather a lot of not-natural bids not conventional. (ex: weak 2H opening, > natural 2S response; if opener's 2NT rebid shows 3 spades and a maximum > weak two, the only meaning is length in the last denomination named, and > overall strength, so 2NT is not conventional.) Sorry, I don't follow this. Did you overlook the Lille interpretation that the "last denomination" applies only for pass, double, or redouble? For your 2NT bid above, the denomination named is notrump. The meaning "three cards in spades" is not one of the listed meanings for a notrump bid (though it would have been for a spade bid), so the 2NT bid you describe is a convention. The same argument holds for conventional raises of a major suit (Jacoby, Swiss, etc.). All such are conventions because they carry a message about partner's suit, which is not the denomination named. I agree that _mandatory_ completion of a transfer (or a puppet!) isn't conventional, at least if partner is allowed to pass. It shows willingness to play in the denomination named -- a listed meaning -- and nothing else. I also agree with David G. that if completion of a transfer denies four cards in the suit, it is conventional. _Shortness_ in the denomination named -- whether a void, a singleton, or fewer than four -- is not one of the listed meanings. Herbert negative is interesting. If it conveys _no message_ other than overall strength, I don't think it is a convention! But in real life, it probably also denies certain weak, distributional hands, and if so, it is a convention after all. Of course the real definition of convention is "I know one when I see one." Many of us noted long ago that the literal meaning of the 1997 definition is not consistent with real-world practice. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 13:24:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:24:07 +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 NAA09379 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:24:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id VAA21216 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:23:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA07119 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:24:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:24:10 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912190224.VAA07119@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > My problem was to decide whether or not the bid 2H, relates to the > specific suit. No consensus, but a majority seem to say it does not. I agree with the majority, although I confess that wasn't my initial belief. "Relates to" is very broad. I'm sure it includes showing shortness, and I believe it includes showing willingness to play in the suit, which 2H does. 2H _certainly_ relates to hearts if it denies four cards. Do we want to rule L26 differently for pairs who do and do not have mandatory super-accepts? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 14:20:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:20:28 +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 OAA09768 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:20:19 +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 SAA11070 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:21:02 -0900 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 18:20:48 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <199912190214.VAA07093@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Steve Willner wrote: > [my original words] > > I guess there is a choice to be made. My reading of the definition makes > > rather a lot of not-natural bids not conventional. (ex: weak 2H opening, > > natural 2S response; if opener's 2NT rebid shows 3 spades and a maximum > > weak two, the only meaning is length in the last denomination named, and > > overall strength, so 2NT is not conventional.) > > Sorry, I don't follow this. Did you overlook the Lille interpretation > that the "last denomination" applies only for pass, double, or > redouble? For your 2NT bid above, the denomination named is notrump. > The meaning "three cards in spades" is not one of the listed meanings > for a notrump bid (though it would have been for a spade bid), so the > 2NT bid you describe is a convention. I could hide behind the excuse that the ACBL never told me about Lille..... :) Truthfully, I overlooked half of the Lille interpretation. I knew that the "willingness to play in the last denomination named" applied only to pass, double, and redouble. I didn't think there was such a thing as showing 3 or more cards in notrump, and my knee-jerk reaction was that we fell back into a 'last denomination named' situation there. To tell the truth, I am not sure whether I want Jacoby 2NT to be called a convention or not if it really promises a strong balanced hand in addition to trump support. Anyway -- if NT bids can't show length in the previous suit named, I withdraw the example. > I agree that _mandatory_ completion of a transfer (or a puppet!) isn't > conventional, at least if partner is allowed to pass. It shows > willingness to play in the denomination named -- a listed meaning -- > and nothing else. I also agree with David G. that if completion of a > transfer denies four cards in the suit, it is conventional. > _Shortness_ in the denomination named -- whether a void, a singleton, > or fewer than four -- is not one of the listed meanings. > > Herbert negative is interesting. If it conveys _no message_ other than > overall strength, I don't think it is a convention! But in real life, > it probably also denies certain weak, distributional hands, and if so, > it is a convention after all. We have come around to the negative inference vs. conventional meaning question before, and I am happy to let sleeping dogs lie instead of arguing that one again. I would also love to see someone agree to put *all* weak hands through Herbert just to see whose chain it would yank. Sadistic little bastard, aren't I? GRB My apologies for keeping this in the L26 thread when there is no L26 content left. Unless someone else would really like to revive the discussion of a definition of convention, in its own thread, I will pipe down about it now. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 14:57:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:57:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu02.email.msn.com [207.46.181.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10095 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:56:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from sodonnell.msn.com - 63.17.197.238 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:56:17 -0800 From: "Sue O'Donnell" To: Subject: Re: Stop card Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:54:49 -0800 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 Message-ID: <01f6b17560313c9CPIMSSMTPU02@email.msn.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Snip of Nancy Dressing's post: >There is an easy way for players to learn the rules. There is a book >available from most book dealers titled "Bridge Player's Companion" by >Larry Harris, 10.95 member price from the ACBL, and another one I have seen >at Tournaments on the Baron Barclay Book table which looks very much like >our law book but is aimed at the player. The title escapes me as does BB's >catalog but is something like the Bridge Player's Law book. I think you are thinking of by Ruth Harrison, published in 1989 by Devyn Press. I had to read it before I had the confidence to sit down at a duplicate table. It is excellent. I plan to write to ACBL about underwriting the updating and republishing of it. Sue O'Donnell Atherton, CA From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 15:22:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:22:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10343 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:22:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 20:21:58 -0800 Message-ID: <005e01bf49d8$98e0dbe0$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 20:21:58 -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 Gordon Bower wrote: > > As I stare at the definition of a convention, I am struck by a slightly > troubling thought. It looks suspiciously like a call that conveys no > distributional information whatsoever, but does specify overall strength, > appears not to be a convention. For example, the currently-disallowed > Herbert negative to a forcing-but-not-strong 1D opening under the ACBL > GCC. Comments? (Perhaps those bent on civil disobedience would like to > play this "convention" in an ACBL event and make the director read the > definition of convention alound when he is summoned?) > The Herbert negative is a convention, since it does not convey a willingness to play there, or strength there, or three cards there. ("there" meaning the named denomination). The definition does not say that strength-clarifying calls are not a convention, only that calls passing one of those three conditions are still not conventions even though they specifiy some amount of strength. Marv (Marvin L. French) BLML blanked Dec 20 - Jan 1 Use mlfrench@writeme.com for e-mail From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 15:28:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:28:43 +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 PAA10406 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:28:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (dial40.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.40]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA29702 for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:28:20 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:29:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: The OKbridge Spectator - December 1999 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Editor, I must take exception to Pitbull's letter in the December 1999 Spectator. The practice he recommends after receiving unauthorized information, "Make the call you were planning to make had partner acted in tempo", is contrary to bridge law. By publishing his letter with no other comment you do a disservice to your readers. I can do no better than to quote the relevant law here: LAW 16 - UNAUTHORISED INFORMATION Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. A. Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. In practice this means not only that one may not be allowed to carry out one's original plan, but also that one must be attentive to partner's tempo, in order to comply with one's legal obligations! It is true that a hesitation by partner does not automatically bar us, for a variety of reasons. It does bar us in certain situations, however. Pitbull's suggestion that partner could use such a hesitation to bar us intentionally is off the mark. Rather than an adjusted score on a board, such behavior would merit sanction by the appropriate disciplinary body. Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 15:32:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:32:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10457 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:32:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 20:32:01 -0800 Message-ID: <007101bf49da$0046c780$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01bf4967$d94e26e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 20:29:36 -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 Anne Jones wrote: ###### (quotes not working) I have been surprised to see so many suggest that the completion of a transfer is not a conventional call. In UK it is alertable because it does not promise at least 3 cards in the suit. ####### Bids that are Alertable need not be conventions, surely? ######## Others have quoted the Law Book definition of a convention but not in its entirety. Convention - 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. I notice the words "or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. (The word there indicates we are not talking about overall strength. The completion of a transfer shows neither so by definition is a conventional call. ######## Anne, that is an "or" after the first clause, not an "and." If any of three conditions are met, a call is not a convention. ############# Law27(2) says "If either the insufficient bid, or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional etc.," so I would consider that the 2H bid is certainly conventional, but would only rule that 3H is conventional if the partnership agreement is that the intervention be ignored and the transfer be completed come hell or high water. Usually the 3H bid would not be conventional because the breaking of a transfer to most players of by experience shows four card support and a maximum 1NT. It does not matter however in this case as the first bid fits the bill. South is silenced. My problem was to decide whether or not the bid 2H, relates to the specific suit. No consensus, but a majority seem to say it does not. ############### Of course it relates to hearts, the word "hearts" is in the call, how could it not relate to hearts? It does not relate to North's heart holding, but it relates to hearts. Marv (Marvin L. French) Gone from BLML Dec 20 - Jan 1 Use mlfrench@writeme.com for e-mail From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 15:43:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:43:35 +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 PAA10563 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:43:27 +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 11zYBX-000GUf-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 04:43:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 04:07:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <199912190214.VAA07093@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199912190214.VAA07093@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >I agree that _mandatory_ completion of a transfer (or a puppet!) isn't >conventional, at least if partner is allowed to pass. It shows >willingness to play in the denomination named -- a listed meaning -- >and nothing else. While I normally avoid arguments on the definition of convention like the plague, I would just like to mention that I do not agree with this. When partner says "do this" you are not showing a willingness to play anywhere. You are doing what you are told. I know this because I live with a wife and two cats! -- David Stevenson Are ytou thinking of giving a pet for Liverpool, England, UK Xmas? If so, plese read this article. Warning: you may find it upsetting. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/caz_chrp.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 16:22:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:22:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10860 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:22:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:22:09 -0800 Message-ID: <007c01bf49e1$01479180$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:22:03 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David J. Grabiner > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Could we agree on the following ruling : > > > >1NT - P - 2Di - 2Sp > >2He > > > >Not conventional, correction to 3He allowed. Yes. > > This depends on agreements. If the 2H bid (absent intervention) denies > four hearts, is it conventional? (Many players play this way; opener must > bid 3H with four hearts and a minimum on LoTT principles, and make a game > try with four hearts and a maximum.) That would be a treatment, not a convention, like agreeing that a weak two bid shows six hearts, or a range of 8 to 12 HCP. > > Whether or not it is conventional, it now relates to hearts (denying > values), and thus if it is withdrawn, the lead penalty is governed by L26A. > But it may not "specify" hearts, the word used by L26A. I am leaning toward the idea that it *does* specify hearts, but it depends on the meaning of the word "specify," which is not defined in DEFINITIONS. If merely naming a suit specifies the suit, then South's forced 2H bid specifies hearts, but this leads to the strange idea that an artificial 1C opening "specifies" clubs. My original thinking was that "specify" probably means to *show* a holding in the suit, not necessarily through a bid of the suit, but perhaps by a convention (e.g., a transfer bid). That would mean that the forced 2H bid, which says nothing about North's heart holding, might not *specify* hearts. An unnecessary 3H response *would* specify hearts, however. More later, still thinking about this, Marv (Marvin L. French) Gone from BLML Dec 20 - Jan 1 Use mlfrench@writeme.com for e-mail From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 16:34:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:34:30 +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 QAA10910 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:34:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (dial40.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.40]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA19920 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 00:34:14 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 00:34:01 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: The OKbridge Spectator - December 1999 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Doh! I sent my (slightly edited) version to the BLML instead of to the okb editor. Well, perhaps he's a BLML subscriber... My apologies to those who thought there were seeing double. AW From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 18:26:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:26:37 +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 SAA11246 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:26:28 +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 CAA01940 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 02:26:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id CAA07392 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 02:26:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 02:26:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912190726.CAA07392@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > The Herbert negative is a convention, since it does not convey a > willingness to play there, or strength there, or three cards > there. ("there" meaning the named denomination). You are reading the definition quite differently than I do. In my view, the key is not the _presence_ of one of the three listed messages but rather the _absence_ of "any message other than" one of the three. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 18:30:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:30:27 +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 SAA11264 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:30:19 +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 CAA01963 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 02:30:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id CAA07412 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 02:30:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 02:30:08 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912190730.CAA07412@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > When partner says "do this" you are not showing a willingness to play > anywhere. You are doing what you are told. I know this because I live > with a wife and two cats! If you do something, aren't you showing (at some level) a willingness to do it? After all, whenever you obey, you have legal (if not necessarily desirable) alternatives. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 21:28:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:28:14 +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 VAA11599 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:28:04 +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 LAA01007 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:25:46 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <385CB31D.C19BF636@eduhi.at> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:27:42 +0100 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [de] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <199912190214.VAA07093@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson schrieb: > Steve Willner wrote: > > >I agree that _mandatory_ completion of a transfer (or a puppet!) isn't > >conventional, at least if partner is allowed to pass. It shows > >willingness to play in the denomination named -- a listed meaning -- > >and nothing else. > > While I normally avoid arguments on the definition of convention like > the plague, I would just like to mention that I do not agree with this. > > When partner says "do this" you are not showing a willingness to play > anywhere. You are doing what you are told. I know this because I live > with a wife and two cats! > IMO, when you do as told, you do show willingness to play there (as it may well be passed out). If unwilling, you can after all refuse to complete the transfer. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 22:09:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:09:13 +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 WAA11689 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:09:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.234] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11zeCv-0006G3-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:08:57 +0000 Message-ID: <013d01bf4a11$80df98e0$ea5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <199912190214.VAA07093@cfa183.harvard.edu> <385CB31D.C19BF636@eduhi.at> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:07:52 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > When partner says "do this" you are not showing a willingness to play > > anywhere. You are doing what you are told. I know this because I live > > with a wife and two cats! > > > > IMO, when you do as told, you do show willingness to play there (as it may > well be passed out). If unwilling, you can after all refuse to complete the > transfer. > +=+ I would qualify this by making a distinction between a partnership understanding where 'partner' is required to keep the auction open and an understanding where he may pass. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 19 22:43:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:43:56 +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 WAA11769 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:43:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.145.75] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11zekV-0001QJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:43:39 +0000 Message-ID: <001501bf4a16$63d4f560$4b9101d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199912190726.CAA07392@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:43:49 -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 > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > The Herbert negative is a convention, since it does not convey a > > willingness to play there, or strength there, or three cards > > there. ("there" meaning the named denomination). > > You are reading the definition quite differently than I do. In my view, > the key is not the _presence_ of one of the three listed messages but > rather the _absence_ of "any message other than" one of the three. This is an example of the dangers of using "or" with a negative - it usually manifests itself in the early stages of a career in computer programming, when the novice writes: IF X NOT = 3 OR 4 DO this ELSE DO that and wonders why the program always does that and never does this. It happens because the compiler interprets the first part of the statement as: IF X NOT = 3 OR X NOT = 4 which, of course, is true for all values of X including 3 and 4. What you have to write is: IF X NOT = 3 AND 4 DO this ELSE DO that which appears horribly counter-intuitive in terms of the English language. The Laws say this: "Convention - 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there." which at least one of us appears to construe (roughly, for the analogy between = and "shows" is by no means exact) as: IF meaning-of-call NOT = willingness-to-play OR high-card-sol THEN call = conventional which will set the value of "call" to "conventional" unless "meaning-of-call" = both "willingness-to-play" and "high-card-sol" ("sol" = "strength-or-length"). Others, including myself, believe that a call is conventional unless it shows EITHER "willingness-to-play" OR "high-card-sol": IF meaning-of-call NOT = willingness-to-play _ AND meaning-of-call NOT = high-card-sol _ THEN call = conventional so that the completion of a transfer is not a conventional call (though it may in some jurisdictions be alertable in some or all circumstances). I cannot see, though, what the conventional nature of 2H in the actual call has do to with the actual case - the question is whether 2H (conventional or not) "specified" hearts. In the context of the original debate, it seems to me more or less wholly inequitable for any lead penalty at all to be assessed after this auction: S W N E 1NT Pass 2D 2S 2H/P end The purpose behind L26 is (presumably) to prevent a side from gaining an unfair advantage when an insufficient call that conveys some information is corrected to a pass. Here, it could be argued that the information conveyed by 2H is not such that the non-offenders need to be indemnified in any way; the 2H call has "made no difference". But there are in this game of ours many occasions on which an infraction that makes no practical difference in terms of conferring an unfair advantage is penalised out of all proportion - the revoke is an obvious example. One could argue that if a penalty must be assessed, and the Laws leave in doubt which penalty, it should in equity be the "weakest" of possible penalties. The trouble is that this will vary from case to case - there will be occasions on which declarer will benefit from the ability to require a heart lead, while he would not benefit from the ability to prohibit anything, and vice versa. So, I suppose a determination must be made and, if its application does not happen to "penalise" the offenders in a particular case, this should be regarded simply as rub of the green. The difficulty is that the term "related to" as it appears in L26 is undefined. Does a compulsory (or nearly so) 2H call, which conveys no information about the heart holding of the player making it, "specify" the heart suit, and is such a call "related to" hearts? The dictionary is of little help: "specify - to mention particularly; to make specific; to set down as requisite" (Chambers) so a subjective determination is required (sigh). My own view is that South's 2H in this auction does not "mention particularly" the heart suit; insofar as hearts have already been "specified" by North, South's 2H adds no further "particulars" to the amount of information already generated by the auction. This distinction may seem counter-intuitive, but we might perhaps agree that a strong 1C opening "mentions" clubs but does not "mention particularly" or "specify" clubs. Hence, I would rule under L26B - reluctantly, for I feel that in most cases the ability to prohibit anything will work to declarer's benefit, while the ability to require a heart will not, so that the stronger and more disproportionate of possible penalties will apply most of the time. It "feels wrong" that, since the only suit the offenders have said anything about is hearts, declarer should have rights over all the suits - but there are a lot of things that "feel wrong" when we apply the Laws of bridge, or of anything else. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 00:45:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 00:45:45 +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 AAA12043 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 00:45:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-25-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.25.37]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA22397 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:45:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <385CDCDF.7CEC732D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:25:51 +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: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <01bf4967$d94e26e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > > I have been surprised to see so many suggest that the completion of a > transfer is not a conventional call. In UK it is alertable because it does > not > promise at least 3 cards in the suit. The alert regulations have no effect on the making of conventionness of a call. Many conventional calls are non-alertable in some countries, and some natural calls are alertable. So that is no argument. > Others have quoted the Law Book definition of a convention but not in its > entirety. > > Convention — 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a > meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named > (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length > (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall > strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender’s play that > serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. > > I notice the words "or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > there. (The word there indicates we are not talking about overall strength. > The completion of a transfer shows neither so by definition is a > conventional call. > The completion of a transfer shows a "willingness" to play there. > Law27(2) says "If either the insufficient bid, or the lowest sufficient > bid in the same denomination may have been conventional etc.," > so I would consider that the 2H bid is certainly conventional, but would > only rule that 3H is conventional if the partnership agreement is that > the intervention be ignored and the transfer be completed come hell > or high water. Usually the 3H bid would not be conventional because > the breaking of a transfer to most players of by experience shows > four card support and a maximum 1NT. It does not matter however > in this case as the first bid fits the bill. South is silenced. > Sorry Anne, I think you are mistaken. > My problem was to decide whether or not the bid 2H, relates to the > specific suit. No consensus, but a majority seem to say it does not. > > Anne -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 00:54:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 00:54:26 +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 AAA12076 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 00:54:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA04021 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:53:36 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:53 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards 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: <001101bf4868$053325e0$5cb701d5@davidburn> David Burn wrote: > John Probst wrote: > > > Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently > > comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? > > Perhaps one of the many polyglots on this list can answer a question > for me. In what language is the above? David, you should remember that John has spent a fortune educating a child to a level which can best be described as "barely literate". It is no surprise that he sometimes attempts to write at the child's level in order to ameliorate the psychological pain. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 02:04:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 02:04:25 +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 CAA12407 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 02:04:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (3com-tc1-72.sopines.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.76]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Sandhills) with ESMTP id KAA11420; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 10:04:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <385CF537.333B8BC6@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 10:09:43 -0500 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Sue O'Donnell" CC: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Stop card References: <01f6b17560313c9CPIMSSMTPU02@email.msn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you, that's the one. We should encourage our beginning bridge players to won a copy. Happy Holidays. Nancy Sue O'Donnell wrote: > > Snip of Nancy Dressing's post: > > >There is an easy way for players to learn the rules. There is a book > >available from most book dealers titled "Bridge Player's Companion" by > >Larry Harris, 10.95 member price from the ACBL, and another one I have > seen > >at Tournaments on the Baron Barclay Book table which looks very much > like > >our law book but is aimed at the player. The title escapes me as does > BB's > >catalog but is something like the Bridge Player's Law book. > > I think you are thinking of Duplicate Bridge,> by Ruth Harrison, published in 1989 by Devyn Press. > I had to read it before I had the confidence to sit down at a duplicate > table. It is excellent. I plan to write to ACBL about underwriting the > updating and republishing of it. > > Sue O'Donnell > Atherton, CA From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 03:26:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 03:26:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe52.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA12588 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 03:26:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 39693 invoked by uid 65534); 19 Dec 1999 16:26:10 -0000 Message-ID: <19991219162610.39692.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.61] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 10:26:21 -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: Sunday, December 19, 1999 7:53 AM Subject: Re: Fw: 13 1/2 cards > In-Reply-To: <001101bf4868$053325e0$5cb701d5@davidburn> > David Burn wrote: > > John Probst wrote: > > > > > Would "too many cards" and "two few cards" be sufficiently > > > comprehendable that is couldn't possibly be used?? > > > > Perhaps one of the many polyglots on this list can answer a question > > for me. In what language is the above? > > David, you should remember that John has spent a fortune educating a child > to a level which can best be described as "barely literate But what age is the child? If one year, I would think it notable the skill needed to spend a fortune in so short a time; but the spending of a fortune during a lifetime is not so notable :). Roger Pewick Houston, Texas > Tim West-Meads > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 03:48:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 03:48:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA12704 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 03:48:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 08:47:57 -0800 Message-ID: <00b101bf4a40$d0d44d80$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912190726.CAA07392@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 08:47:54 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > The Herbert negative is a convention, since it does not convey a > > willingness to play there, or strength there, or three cards > > there. ("there" meaning the named denomination). > > You are reading the definition quite differently than I do. In my view, > the key is not the _presence_ of one of the three listed messages but > rather the _absence_ of "any message other than" one of the three. > But one of those three is necessary if a call is to be judged as not a convention. I did not say that merely having one of those meanings is sufficient. "Any message other than" is not in the Laws' definition of convention; it is your interpretation and should not have quotation marks. The French translation of the Laws says that the English "conveys other than willingness" means unwillingness, not something else too, which would require "conveys something other than willingness," or, as you put it, "any message other than willingness." >From the French: "...ne montre pas l'intention de jouer dans la dénomination faite..." (literally, does not show an inclination to play in the named denomination) Needless to say, I agree with that translation. Marv (Marvin L. French) Gone from BLML Dec 20 - Jan 1 Use mlfrench@writeme.com for e-mail From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 04:06:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 04:06:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from ns2.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA12783 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 04:06:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.94.7.213]) by ns2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:06:13 -0800 Message-ID: <00bc01bf4a43$5ddb9880$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199912190730.CAA07412@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:06:14 -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: Steve Willner > > From: David Stevenson > > When partner says "do this" you are not showing a willingness to play > > anywhere. You are doing what you are told. I know this because I live > > with a wife and two cats! > > If you do something, aren't you showing (at some level) a willingness to > do it? After all, whenever you obey, you have legal (if not necessarily > desirable) alternatives. > Wives have laws that lawyers know not of. The word "willingness" can have different shades of meaning, unfortunately. It can mean anything from an eager desire to a reluctant acquiesence, depending on context. The Laws should avoid the use of such words wherever possible. In the context of the Laws' definition, I would say it means the player making the call at the very least is accepting the possibility that the named denomination (or last-named denomination if s/he didn't name one) could be the denomination in which the final contract is played. So, I agree with Steve. Marv (Marvin L. French) Gone from BLML Dec 20 - Jan 1 Use mlfrench@writeme.com for e-mail From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 04:56:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA12999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 04:56:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA12994 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 04:56:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11zkZ8-000Ezg-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:56:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:54:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <199912190224.VAA07119@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199912190224.VAA07119@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Anne Jones" >> My problem was to decide whether or not the bid 2H, relates to the >> specific suit. No consensus, but a majority seem to say it does not. > >I agree with the majority, although I confess that wasn't my initial >belief. "Relates to" is very broad. I'm sure it includes showing >shortness, and I believe it includes showing willingness to play in the >suit, which 2H does. 2H _certainly_ relates to hearts if it denies >four cards. Do we want to rule L26 differently for pairs who do and do >not have mandatory super-accepts? My initial thoughts on this were, like yours, ambivalent, precisely because of super-accepts. However I decided that it matters not whether super-accepts are played or not. This IMO is a 26B ruling. chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 07:16:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:16:14 +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 HAA13304 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:16:05 +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 11zmkB-000Dhb-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:15:53 +0000 Message-ID: <7Dp105Af0PX4EwWz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:43:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <007c01bf49e1$01479180$d5075e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007c01bf49e1$01479180$d5075e18@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: >My original thinking was that "specify" probably means to *show* a >holding in the suit, not necessarily through a bid of the suit, >but perhaps by a convention (e.g., a transfer bid). That would >mean that the forced 2H bid, which says nothing about North's >heart holding, might not *specify* hearts. An unnecessary 3H >response *would* specify hearts, however. I think this is correct. I think the actual sequence is questionable as to whether the player was just completing a transfer by rote and had missed the intervening bid, or whether he was making a free bid to show a heart holding. -- David Stevenson Are you thinking of giving a pet for Liverpool, England, UK Xmas? If so, please read this article. Warning: you may find it upsetting. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/caz_chrp.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 07:16:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:16:27 +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 HAA13322 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:16:20 +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 11zmkI-0007Tc-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:16:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:54:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> <0jjn5skd5alhandnkr60p5nap3c7da4fg3@bilbo.dit.dk> In-Reply-To: <0jjn5skd5alhandnkr60p5nap3c7da4fg3@bilbo.dit.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >>But yes, NS has the problem that N does not know his system. >>This will lead to N passing, on which we definitely base the >>adjustment. I.e., after N's pass, I am sure that we agree that >>EW are allowed to know that NS has a misunderstanding. >> >>It will also unavoidably lead to N not alerting, from which EW >>may be able to guess that there is a misunderstanding. This is >>AI which is available to EW just as much as the (later) pass is, >>and I think it should be considered when adjusting. > >>> I think the analogy is confusing. I do not see that an adjustment >>>should be based on MI and correct explanation simultaneously. > >>I do not see why EW should be put in a worse situation than the >>one they would be in if W had happened to see the words "Reverse >>Drury" on the CC beforehand. >> >>It seems most logical to me to base the adjustment on an imagined >>situation in which EW knows the NS system beforehand and the >>board is then played with the alerts/non-alerts that must follow >>from NS's misunderstanding. > Well, I don't. I think that the fairest way to consider it is as >though EW can find out the NS system accurately without any alerts or >explanations. They can use the calls and plays of their oppos, and the >mannerisms unconnected with passing MI, but since there is no need to >pass correct info EW do not get the info that their oppos do not know >what they are doing. > > Of course, they can infer it, but I think we agree about that. I like >to think of "perfect" bridge as played with EW not needing NS's help to >know NS's system. -- David Stevenson Are you thinking of giving a pet for Liverpool, England, UK Xmas? If so, please read this article. Warning: you may find it upsetting. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/caz_chrp.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 07:16:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:16:22 +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 HAA13316 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:16:13 +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 11zmkH-000Dha-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:15:58 +0000 Message-ID: <5zO1I8AA3PX4Ew05@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:46:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <199912190214.VAA07093@cfa183.harvard.edu> <385CB31D.C19BF636@eduhi.at> In-Reply-To: <385CB31D.C19BF636@eduhi.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > > >David Stevenson schrieb: > >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >> >I agree that _mandatory_ completion of a transfer (or a puppet!) isn't >> >conventional, at least if partner is allowed to pass. It shows >> >willingness to play in the denomination named -- a listed meaning -- >> >and nothing else. >> >> While I normally avoid arguments on the definition of convention like >> the plague, I would just like to mention that I do not agree with this. >> >> When partner says "do this" you are not showing a willingness to play >> anywhere. You are doing what you are told. I know this because I live >> with a wife and two cats! >> > >IMO, when you do as told, you do show willingness to play there (as it may >well be passed out). If unwilling, you can after all refuse to complete the >transfer. That is not bridge. There is no "willingness to play there". Consider when partner bids 4NT Blackwood. You bid 5D to show an ace. That is not showing a willingness to play there. Of course, there will always come a day when partner passes 5D, but so what? You could argue strongly that completion of a transfer shows unwillingness to let partner play in his bid. So? -- David Stevenson Are you thinking of giving a pet for Liverpool, England, UK Xmas? If so, please read this article. Warning: you may find it upsetting. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/caz_chrp.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 07:16:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:16:16 +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 HAA13305 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:16:07 +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 11zmkH-000Dhb-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:15:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:49:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <199912190730.CAA07412@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199912190730.CAA07412@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 >> When partner says "do this" you are not showing a willingness to play >> anywhere. You are doing what you are told. I know this because I live >> with a wife and two cats! > >If you do something, aren't you showing (at some level) a willingness to >do it? After all, whenever you obey, you have legal (if not necessarily >desirable) alternatives. See! Someone else who does not know my wife and cats! No, it does not show willingness. It is a nonsense to suggest that a 5D response to Blackwood shows a willingness to play there because you have legal alternatives. -- David Stevenson Are you thinking of giving a pet for Liverpool, England, UK Xmas? If so, please read this article. Warning: you may find it upsetting. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/caz_chrp.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 09:26:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:26:39 +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 JAA13664 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:26:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtgug.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.195.208]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA31226; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:26:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19991219223659.006e60d4@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:36:59 -0800 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:22 PM 12/18/99 -0800, you wrote: > >From: David J. Grabiner > >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >Could we agree on the following ruling : >> > >> >1NT - P - 2Di - 2Sp >> >2He >> > >> >Not conventional, correction to 3He allowed. > >Yes. [snip] >But it may not "specify" hearts, the word used by L26A. I am >leaning toward the idea that it *does* specify hearts, but it >depends on the meaning of the word "specify," which is not defined >in DEFINITIONS. If merely naming a suit specifies the suit, then >South's forced 2H bid specifies hearts, but this leads to the >strange idea that an artificial 1C opening "specifies" clubs. > at the risk of proving my legal ignorance, would the sequence in question be analogous to a 2h pass/correct response to a multi 2d? surely it shows a willingness to play in hearts, as does accepting the transfer; says nothing about length in hearts, although there may be some negative inference from a failure to bounce; and says nothing specific about responder's strength. thanks in advance for your enlightenment, henrysun From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 18:04:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:04:04 +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 SAA14714 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:03:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.142.47] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11zwrE-0003tQ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:03:49 +0000 Message-ID: <001201bf4ab8$713faea0$2f8e01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <1.5.4.32.19991219223659.006e60d4@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:04:20 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: > at the risk of proving my legal ignorance, would the sequence in > question be analogous to a 2h pass/correct response to a multi > 2d? surely it shows a willingness to play in hearts, as does > accepting the transfer; says nothing about length in hearts, > although there may be some negative inference from a failure to > bounce; and says nothing specific about responder's strength. I think this example illustrates quite well the difference (as I see it) between "mention" and "specify". A 2H response to a Multi mentions hearts but does not specify anything; a 2S response to a Multi mentions spades but specifies hearts. The question is: which of these responses is conventional? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 18:48:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA14790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:48:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14785 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:48:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.59] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11zxYI-000B8w-00; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:48:19 +0000 Message-ID: <001501bf4abe$a475f9e0$3b5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <199912190730.CAA07412@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00bc01bf4a43$5ddb9880$d5075e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:35:26 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > From: David Stevenson > > > > When partner says "do this" you are not showing a willingness to play > > > anywhere. You are doing what you are told. I know this because I live > > > with a wife and two cats! +=+ In the animal kingdom there is always an order of seniority. Every animal knows its place and what happens when it tries to step up. The human animal can exhibit the most brutal dispatch of the presumer. +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 5:06 PM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > The word "willingness" can have different shades of meaning, unfortunately. It > can mean anything from an eager desire to a reluctant acquiesence, depending > on context. The Laws should avoid the use of such words wherever possible. > +=+ Oh, but I do agree. More, we should not use words at all - they can all be misconstrued, argued about, picked over. Let us devise a means of communication without words - like the Director thumps your ear if he thinks you are out of line. Merry Christmas. :-))) ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 20 19:42:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:42:56 +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 TAA14882 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:42:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA03790 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:42:11 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:42 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss 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: <385A7DB7.FE3BB6C7@alltel.net> Norman Hostetler wrote: > > xx > > Qxxxxx > > xxxx > > x > > > > This hand is too rare to worry about. Partner is capped at about 19 > HCP, since > he didn't open 2C. So this hand exists only when partner has 16-19 > HCP, and > opponents have 19-22 HCP distributed so that neither could open. If we > now add > in the requirement that they can make 4 or 5C, or that they have a > successful > sac (down no more than 2) over our making 4H (unlikely in itself), we > come up > with the probability that you'll never see this combination in your > lifetime. In an extreme world the oppos hands (not everyone would open them) could be: QJ432 AT65 - 5 QJ32 A4 A432 KT8765 and 7S will make. In a less extreme world it is easy to visualise many hands where oppos can make 9 or 10 tricks in spades. Nor does every pair wish to play different methods opposite fourth hand openers to those in use elsewhere (this may be slightly sub-optimal but it eases memory). There is nothing unplayable in a system where 1H-3/4H deny real values and show 4 and 5 card suits respectively while "value raises" are put through eg 3m. Playing these methods then 3D is the only option on the original hand and passing 3H subsequently is not an LA. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 00:30:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:30:41 +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 AAA15798 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:30:33 +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 IAA00997 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:30:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991220083437.0074e1e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:34:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <01bf4967$d94e26e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 AAA15799 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:54 PM 12/18/99 -0000, Anne wrote: >I have been surprised to see so many suggest that the completion of a >transfer is not a conventional call. In UK it is alertable because it does >not >promise at least 3 cards in the suit. >Others have quoted the Law Book definition of a convention but not in its >entirety. > >Convention — 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a >meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named >(or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length >(three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall >strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender’s play that >serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. > >I notice the words "or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > there. (The word there indicates we are not talking about overall strength. >The completion of a transfer shows neither so by definition is a >conventional call. But we should notice in particular the word "or". If a call shows "willingness to play...", it need not show "strength or length" in order to be not conventional. I'm sure we've all taken completely natural preferences on fewer than three cards in our naturally-bid suit. Count me in the camp that believes that 2H "conveys a... willingness to play in the denomination named", notwithstanding that such willingness may be based solely on the message of partner's 2D, which said, in effect, "you should be willing to play in 2H regardless of your hand". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 00:46:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:46:09 +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 AAA15865 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:46:02 +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 IAA02194 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:46:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991220085009.00755260@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:50:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 In-Reply-To: <0jjn5skd5alhandnkr60p5nap3c7da4fg3@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:14 PM 12/18/99 +0100, Jesper wrote: >I do not see why EW should be put in a worse situation than the >one they would be in if W had happened to see the words "Reverse >Drury" on the CC beforehand. One could argue that if the words "Reverse Drury" appeared on the CC, why shouldn't E-W be put in a worse situation than they would be otherwise by having failed to read them? One could counter-argue that asking about agreements is an alternative method of eliciting information, and entitles the asker to whatever information he would have obtained by reading the CC. But it then seems inconsistent to argue that the asker is also entitled to some additional information from which he could then infer that the responder was unaware of what was on the CC. Either the reader/asker's choice of the method by which he chooses to obtain the information affects the nature of the information to which he is entitled or it doesn't; we can't have it both ways. 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 Dec 21 02:22:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 02:22:05 +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 CAA16323 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 02:21:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-151.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.151]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA05104 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:21:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <385DFD5E.BC0BAC3D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:56:46 +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: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <199912190214.VAA07093@cfa183.harvard.edu> <385CB31D.C19BF636@eduhi.at> <5zO1I8AA3PX4Ew05@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > >> > > > >IMO, when you do as told, you do show willingness to play there (as it may > >well be passed out). If unwilling, you can after all refuse to complete the > >transfer. > > That is not bridge. There is no "willingness to play there". > > Consider when partner bids 4NT Blackwood. You bid 5D to show an ace. > That is not showing a willingness to play there. Of course, there will > always come a day when partner passes 5D, but so what? > > You could argue strongly that completion of a transfer shows > unwillingness to let partner play in his bid. So? > Come on David, using the "I know it when I see it" test, you must realise that 2He is natural while 5Di is conventional. Surely a call which is made as a possible end contract must be called natural ? Yesterday, one opponent raised his partner's 4Di to 5Di. Partner had previously opened a game forcer, and dummy came down with the bare 2 of diamonds and one jack. Surely that is a natural call ! (BTW would it be alertable in England ?) Yet who would be "willing to play" there except because partner told him it would be correct? Similarly the completion of a transfer shows a willingness to play. You may have no choice in the matter, but you are still "willing to play". I have agreed on the L26B issue - but don't go too far in calling these calls conventional. Don't be blinded by your alert regulations, please! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 04:21:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 04:21:54 +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 EAA16713 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 04:21:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from p5cs04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.93] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11zepT-0005wF-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:48:47 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bf4b0e$62b94e80$5d8493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:14:48 -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 Date: 20 December 1999 07:24 Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? >Henry Sun wrote: > >> at the risk of proving my legal ignorance, would the sequence in >> question be analogous to a 2h pass/correct response to a multi >> 2d? surely it shows a willingness to play in hearts, as does >> accepting the transfer; says nothing about length in hearts, >> although there may be some negative inference from a failure to >> bounce; and says nothing specific about responder's strength. > >I think this example illustrates quite well the difference (as I see >it) between "mention" and "specify". A 2H response to a Multi mentions >hearts but does not specify anything; a 2S response to a Multi >mentions spades but specifies hearts. The question is: which of these >responses is conventional? > +=+ Good heavens! I agree with Burn again. But it is worth a mention, nay, indeed specification, that the answer has to be related to the understanding "this pair" has; the Director will no doubt ascertain before he rules, and not make any assumption. ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 04:57:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 04:57:35 +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 EAA16839 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 04:57:26 +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 MAA03127 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA08613 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:57:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:57:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912201757.MAA08613@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW> >I agree that _mandatory_ completion of a transfer (or a puppet!) isn't SW> >conventional, at least if partner is allowed to pass. It shows SW> >willingness to play in the denomination named -- a listed meaning -- SW> >and nothing else. > David Stevenson schrieb: > > While I normally avoid arguments on the definition of convention like > > the plague, I would just like to mention that I do not agree with this. > > > > When partner says "do this" you are not showing a willingness to play > > anywhere. You are doing what you are told. I know this because I live > > with a wife and two cats! > From: Petrus Schuster OSB > IMO, when you do as told, you do show willingness to play there (as it may > well be passed out). If unwilling, you can after all refuse to complete the > transfer. Thanks for the support. On further thought (and without yet having reviewed other messages in this thread), I realize what I wrote above was poorly phrased. Whatever you think about the meaning of 'willingness', mandatory completion of a puppet or transfer is not conventional because it conveys _no other meaning_ besides (possibly) willingness to play in the denomination named. It is the _absence_ of any other meaning that is the key to deciding whether a call is a convention or not. On the other hand, if you agree that failure to super-accept denies four-card support, then simple completion of a transfer is a convention. A super-accept _in the suit shown_ (e.g., 1NT-2D!-3H) is not a convention unless it promises specific features outside the suit named (e.g. "always 4333" or "not 4333" or some such but not overall strength.) Some of this may be counter-intuitive, but it is what the text says. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 07:55:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:55:23 +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 HAA17147 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:55:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.145.14] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1209pf-00027E-00; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:55:03 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01bf4b2c$982885e0$0e9101d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <199912190726.CAA07392@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001501bf4a16$63d4f560$4b9101d5@davidburn> <00f801bf4a64$538e8f60$d5075e18@san.rr.com> <001301bf4ad8$2a4ddb00$f69201d5@davidburn> <000e01bf4b0a$87e2b100$10085e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:55:47 -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 Marvin wrote: > I jumped at a conclusion before reading all you had written. As one of your greatest poets put it: Get it right or let it alone; the conclusion you jump to may well be your own :) > Okay, David, then you are of the opinion that the withdrawn 2H bid by North > was not related to the heart suit, which had been specified by South. I find > that idea very strange. Not at all. I do not believe that the 2H bid was related to, or specified anything "an und fur sich", as the Germans say - "in and for itself" as we somewhat inadequately translate that phrase. A pinkish herring has been introduced in terms of what the player might have done had he wished to "super-accept" the transfer, but this is not helpful in the present context; let us assume that North was required to bid 2H whatever his holding in the suit. Now, his bid of 2H has no relation to, nor does it specify, hearts in terms of what is meant by L26. Of course, it is very closely "related to" and may even be said to "specify" hearts in the broader context of the English language, but I do not believe that this is what is being considered. In this auction: N S 1D 3D 4NT 5D Pass was South's final call related to diamonds? Did it specify diamonds? Not in the sense in which those words are being used in L26, but certainly in the wider sense. I would say that a bid "relates to" a suit if it says something about the bidder's holding that suit which, before the bid was made, was not known from the previous auction. In this sequence: N S 2NT 3D 3H Pass where 3D is the Flint convention (bid 3H and pass if I then bid 3S), are 3D and 3H related to hearts? Do they specify hearts? I would not say so - it is South's pass that is both related to and specifies hearts. > At least you should see that L26A ought to say "was previously legally > specified by the same player." Not related to this case, but an obvious > mistake in the law. I do not agree with you. In this auction: N E S W 2NT Pass 2D/4H 4S Pass Pass Pass there is no lead penalty in respect of South's 2D, because it related to the heart suit which was later specified by South's 4H. The same would be true if South had substituted 3D for 2D. > Also unrelated is that the word "call" in the first footnote should be > "denomination." How could a repeated call (2H and 2H) have a different > meaning? This has to do with an auction such as: N E S W 1NT 2H 2D 2H where South's first 2H was out of turn and was a transfer to spades; East's 2D showed spades and another, so South is now bidding a natural 2H (with, perhaps, 5-5 in the majors). Such positions are usually a consequence of the application of L30B1, which refers to L26. > These are examples of why the Laws cannot always be taken literally, and > therefore must sometimes be interpreted by a TD, contrary to what David S. > says. On the contrary, I believe that the Laws must always be taken literally, Unfortunately, there are occasionally differences of opinion as to how this should be done. An interpretation by a TD is in effect a statement to the the effect that this TD believes X to be the literal interpretation of the Laws; it is open to a committee or a senior TD to substitute their literal interpretation Y. > The intent of the revoke law is that some harmless revokes may be penalized > severely. Not so. The effect of the revoke law is that some harmless revokes are penalised, but that was not its intent. Its original intent may be stated in simple terms: if a player revokes, and thereby gains a trick (as by ruffing when he could follow suit, or by discarding in order to retain a stopper), we will (a) restore equity by taking that trick away from him, and (b) punish him by taking another trick away. The law has gone through various modifications in order to minimise its effect on "irrelevant" revokes, but this effect has not been entirely removed. I have said that this appears on occasion inequitable, but I do not disapprove of this; there are many laws in bridge and other sports whose application gives a result that most would describe as "unfair". I have no problem with this at all, unlike many of those whose task it is to create and administer the laws. I have gone on record as saying, only half in jest, that in my opinion the penalty for a revoke should be death. If it were, people would concentrate harder on following suit, and at least we would soon not have to administer a foolish law in respect of those unable to do so. > The intent of L26 is not that a player who has not shown hearts cannot lead > hearts when partner has shown them. That is an oversight, unforeseen, like the > two errors above. The original intent of L26 was that a player whose partner had shown hearts illegally and then chosen not to show them legally could not lead hearts (or had to lead hearts, if this proved to be to the other side's advantage). That is a noble aim - unfortunately, as with the revoke law, its effect is sometimes to penalise a side which has done nothing (apart from paying insufficient attention) to deserve a penalty. We British call this "hard cheese", my American wife uses the phrase "tough snacks", for reasons which are equally obvious or equally obscure. > Anyway L26A2 is the law to apply if you take L26 literally (and also recognize > that 2H is related to the heart suit). I agree with you entirely; however, as you will see from the foregoing, I do not recognise the element that you have parenthesized). > North has not specified hearts in the > legal auction, South has. However, the obvious assumption by L26A2 (which has > a misleading title that should be ignored) is that the withdrawn call > specified the suit. The assumption in L26A2 appears to me to be that the offender, whose call has been withdrawn, has not in any of the legal auction made a call that specified (or was related to) the suit. Its heading appears relevant enough to me. One might, I suppose, argue that the opening 1NT was "related to" hearts in that it guaranteed a holding of between two and five of them. I would not say that this argument was wholly without merit; perhaps we have been fortunate that no one has yet adduced it, since it would add a degree of complexity for which I do not think the world is yet ready. It would, however, fit my definition of the phrase "related to" given above. > Whoever wrote the law obviously did not think of the fact > that a player could make a bid related to a specific suit and yet not specify > the suit. That sounds impossible, but the second specif.. has the meaning of > "show," as most of us understand it. "Specify" seems to be one of those > instances of using a fancy word that doesn't fit instead of a plain > Anglo-Saxon word that does. I see no defect in the law as it is written, apart from the fact that it will on occasion lead to inequity, but I do not believe it a requirement of the Laws that they should preserve equity in all cases and at all costs. > I wish we knew who is (are) responsible for every sentence, so we could ask > what was intended. As Grattan has said: When Senators have had their sport, And sealed the Law by vote, It little matters what they thought - We hang for what they wrote. > Happy holidays, I'm outta here. I do not know if an enterprising reviewer of the (awful) film "Armageddon" submitted as his copy the title of the film followed by the words "outta here". If not, then he should have done. A Merry Christmas and an equitable New Year to one and all. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 08:34:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:34:29 +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 IAA17247 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:34:18 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23740 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:34:07 +0100 Received: from ip197.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.197), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb23735; Mon Dec 20 22:34:05 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:34:05 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> <0jjn5skd5alhandnkr60p5nap3c7da4fg3@bilbo.dit.dk> <3.0.1.32.19991220085009.00755260@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19991220085009.00755260@pop.cais.com> 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 IAA17249 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:50:09 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 07:14 PM 12/18/99 +0100, Jesper wrote: > >>I do not see why EW should be put in a worse situation than the >>one they would be in if W had happened to see the words "Reverse >>Drury" on the CC beforehand. > >One could argue that if the words "Reverse Drury" appeared on the CC, why >shouldn't E-W be put in a worse situation than they would be otherwise by >having failed to read them? When a player does not alert a call, there should IMO be no reason for his opponents to check the CC before assuming that the call has a non-alertable meaning. The whole point of the alert procedure is to avoid players having to check CCs or ask for every call, so not checking a CC after a non-alert should not be called "having failed". I do not like the idea that you may get a better score if you check the CC than if you play on assuming that the non-alert was correct. (And having written the sentence above, I suddenly realize that it is probably the best argument for my point of view.) >One could counter-argue that asking about agreements is an alternative >method of eliciting information, and entitles the asker to whatever >information he would have obtained by reading the CC. But it then seems >inconsistent to argue that the asker is also entitled to some additional >information from which he could then infer that the responder was unaware >of what was on the CC. Either the reader/asker's choice of the method by >which he chooses to obtain the information affects the nature of the >information to which he is entitled or it doesn't; we can't have it both ways. My point is that an alert or non-alert has nothing to do with a reader/asker's choice of method: it is information provided to him automatically. And it seems to me that there is no particular reason to remove his right to use the information in an alert/non-alert just because we provide the information about the partnership agreements that he is entitled to. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 08:34:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:34:28 +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 IAA17246 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:34:18 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23739 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:34:07 +0100 Received: from ip197.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.197), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda23735; Mon Dec 20 22:34:04 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:34:04 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> <0jjn5skd5alhandnkr60p5nap3c7da4fg3@bilbo.dit.dk> In-Reply-To: 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 IAA17248 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:54:40 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >>Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >>>It seems most logical to me to base the adjustment on an imagined >>>situation in which EW knows the NS system beforehand and the >>>board is then played with the alerts/non-alerts that must follow >>>from NS's misunderstanding. > >> Well, I don't. I think that the fairest way to consider it is as >>though EW can find out the NS system accurately without any alerts or >>explanations. They can use the calls and plays of their oppos, and the >>mannerisms unconnected with passing MI, but since there is no need to >>pass correct info EW do not get the info that their oppos do not know >>what they are doing. >> >> Of course, they can infer it, but I think we agree about that. I like >>to think of "perfect" bridge as played with EW not needing NS's help to >>know NS's system. Having thought more about it, I do agree that this is just as logical as my preferred way of doing it. But it seems to me that in some situations there will be difficulties in doing this consistently: As an example, assume that, in an auction like the one this thread started with, W actually knew the NS system beforehand, but E did not. W passes because he hopes N has forgot his system, N passes because he has indeed forgotten, and E balances because he does not know the NS system. E has MI, and might well have passed for a good score if he knew that the 2C bid by S which N has just passed was artificial and forcing. So we adjust. When adjusting here, we must of course adjust to the result of W knowing that N did not alert (because W did know that and passed as a result before the MI became a problem), so we cannot in general say that we ignore alerts when adjusting in MI cases. Though I admit that I was unable to quickly make up an example in which the same non-alert had significance twice, once before the call affected by MI and once after, the example does show that we cannot simply ignore all alerts when adjusting in MI cases. See also my answer to Eric's post. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 10:26:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:26:04 +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 KAA17503 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:25:56 +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 SAA22112 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:25:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA08952 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:25:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:25:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912202325.SAA08952@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > But one of those three is necessary if a call is to be judged as not a > convention. As I've said, that's not how I read it. > "Any message other than" is not in the Laws' definition of convention; it is > your interpretation and should not have quotation marks. The exact quotation is "...conveys a meaning other than...." I don't think my inaccurate quotation (substituting 'any message' for 'a meaning') changes the definition. > From: David Stevenson > Consider when partner bids 4NT Blackwood. You bid 5D to show an ace. > That is not showing a willingness to play there. Of course, there will > always come a day when partner passes 5D, but so what? I would say it does show willingness to play there if partner passes, so we are doomed to disagree about 'willingness'. Regardless of that, David's 5D bid is definitely a convention because it shows one ace, which is not one of the listed meanings for non-conventional calls. > From: "David Burn" > I think this example illustrates quite well the difference (as I see > it) between "mention" and "specify". A 2H response to a Multi mentions > hearts but does not specify anything; a 2S response to a Multi > mentions spades but specifies hearts. The question is: which of these > responses is conventional? Ah, back to our original topic! For deciding between L26A and 26B, we need to know whether "the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits." 'Specify' doesn't come into things at this stage. It arises only when we consider what the player did in the later auction in order to decide whether to apply L26A1 or 26A2. In this case, there is no doubt we use 26A2 if we use 26A. In this case, there is no doubt that the specified suit we inquire about is hearts. The question then becomes whether a 2H bid intended as a transfer completion "related to" hearts, not whether it "mentioned" or "specified" them. Please make sure you apply the right test in deciding between 26A and B. I believe the transfer completion does "relate to" hearts, although it certainly does not show values or promise length there. The contrast is with a notrump bid or an artificial bid not promising values in any suit. Such bids cannot be said to "relate to" any suit. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 14:02:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:02:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18386 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:02:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 120FZ9-0003NL-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 03:02:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:52:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 References: <199912090641.BAA20258@freenet3.carleton.ca> <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> <0jjn5skd5alhandnkr60p5nap3c7da4fg3@bilbo.dit.dk> <3.0.1.32.19991220085009.00755260@pop.cais.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: >I do not like the idea that you may get a better score if you >check the CC than if you play on assuming that the non-alert was >correct. > >(And having written the sentence above, I suddenly realize that >it is probably the best argument for my point of view.) Good. That simplifies things. If a player gains an advantage from realising his opponents have had a misunderstanding, then that's life - but it is not equity. You are damaged when you fail to reach the equity of the situation that existed just before the infraction. That does not include the lucky gains that might have accrued from odd happenings - such as realising the oppos are having a misunderstanding. Redress is meant to return to that equity, so it does not include such oddities. Thus an adjustment should not assume that the misinformed player had such odd advantages. -- David Stevenson Are you thinking of giving a pet for Liverpool, England, UK Xmas? If so, please read this article. Warning: you may find it upsetting. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/caz_chrp.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 18:59:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:59:14 +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 SAA18790 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:59:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.129.37] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 120KCA-0007Ha-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:58:58 +0000 Message-ID: <001101bf4b89$56524c20$258101d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199912202325.SAA08952@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:59:40 -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: > I believe the transfer completion does "relate to" hearts, although it > certainly does not show values or promise length there. The contrast > is with a notrump bid or an artificial bid not promising values in any > suit. Such bids cannot be said to "relate to" any suit. Oh, I don't know. If a 1S opener relates to spades in that it promises between five and, say, ten of them, why does a 1NT opener not relate to spades in that it promises between two and, say, five of them? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 19:34:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:34:55 +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 TAA18901 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:34:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:34:11 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA16408 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:32:45 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:01:40 +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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Anne Jones wrote: >> >Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. >> > >> >N E S W >> >1NT P 2D* 2S >> >2H >> > >> >* tfr. >> > >> >TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional >> >bid and explains options including that there may be lead >> >penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. > >I believe North must pass, per L27B2. No, South (offender's partner) must pass. >> > >> >OK so far? >> > >> >North is now on lead and has no UI. No lead penalties. >> >However when South achieves the lead we have it seems the >> >lead penalties of L26 even tho' S has no UI other than North >> >would have completed the Tfr.absent the competition. >> >Do we apply Law26A2, specified suit not mentioned by >> > the same player in the legal auction, or Law 26B. >> >Remember that we have ruled that the 2H bid was likely >> >conventional. >> >Was the heart suit specified by the offender? >> >> Not in my view, no. So we apply L26B. >> >But the 2H bid was "related" to a specific suit, hearts. L26B >(Other Withdrawn Calls) applies to calls that are unrelated to a >specific suit, i.e., notrump bids, suit bids unrelated to a >specific suit (e.g., artificial strong 2C opening), doubles, >redoubles, and passes. 2H is not related to hearts, in the sense that it tells nothing whatsoever about North's heart holding (in fact, it tells almost nothing at all). It is a more or less obligatory bid. >So we look at L26A. Not L26A1, since hearts were specified by >South, not by North. That leaves 26A2, if anything. That should be L26B. See above. >However, I would rule that L26 does not apply at all. It was >obviously intended for the withdrawal of "real" calls, not forced >calls that convey zero information. Sometimes a TD has to >interpret a law's intent when there is no LC member around to >help. Imposing a lead penalty in this case is too revolting to >consider if there is a way to avoid it. > >I don't see that the withdrawn 2H bid or the substituted pass >created any UI, so no harm no foul. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) It is true that the 2H-bid didn't show anything at all, so this could be a reason not to apply a lead penalty here.. However, L26 does not talk about calls which provide no information at all, like this 2H-bid. You arrive here through the insufficient bid law, and now that you arrive here, you must apply it. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 19:35:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:35:05 +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 TAA18904 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:34:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:34:12 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA21721; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:53:21 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Marvin L. French'" , "'BLML'" Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:22:19 +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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Of course it relates to hearts, the word "hearts" is in the call, >how could it not relate to hearts? It does not relate to North's >heart holding, but it relates to hearts. Then a Precision 1C opening relates to clubs, yes? After all, the "Clubs" is in the call... -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 19:35:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:35:08 +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 TAA18911 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:34:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:34:12 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA20610 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:48:51 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:17:47 +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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: >Convention: A call that , by partnership understanding, conveys a meaning >other than willingness to play in the denomination named, or high-card >strength or length there. However, an agreement as to overall strength >does not make a call a convention. > >2H conveys no meaning other than a willingness to play 2H. (Not >enthusiasm, mind you.) Incontrovertibly not conventional, far as I am >concerned. But, since North didn't elect to bid 3H, we are in Law 26 >territory anyway. [If North has a good argument that he would have bid 3H >had the director correctly informed him he could do so without penalty now >we are at 82C.] I don't agree that North is willing to play 2H. North might or might not want to play 2H, depending on his holding. He is simply bidding 2H because he is obliged to do so. In short, 2H means nothing. That is a convention. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 19:42:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:42:12 +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 TAA18953 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:42:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:41:36 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id SAA24486 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:08:23 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:37:20 +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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: >at the risk of proving my legal ignorance, would the sequence in >question be analogous to a 2h pass/correct response to a multi >2d? surely it shows a willingness to play in hearts, as does >accepting the transfer; says nothing about length in hearts, >although there may be some negative inference from a failure to >bounce; and says nothing specific about responder's strength. Yes, it would. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 19:42:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:42:15 +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 TAA18955 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:42:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:41:35 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id SAA24433 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:06:24 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:35:18 +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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I think this is correct. I think the actual sequence is questionable >as to whether the player was just completing a transfer by rote and had >missed the intervening bid, or whether he was making a free bid to show >a heart holding. If he was making a free bid, he probably meant to bid 3H all the time. That would be a 25A case. 2H is never a free bid if you play transfers. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 20:40:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:40:37 +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 UAA19104 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:40:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:40:16 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA02522; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:55:12 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'David Burn'" , Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:23:54 +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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Oh, I don't know. If a 1S opener relates to spades in that it promises >between five and, say, ten of them, why does a 1NT opener not relate >to spades in that it promises between two and, say, five of them? Because 1NT relates to every suit in that way, and thus is not related to a specific suit. 1S relates to spades only. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 21:40:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:40:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe25.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA19222 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:40:31 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 2891 invoked by uid 65534); 21 Dec 1999 10:39:52 -0000 Message-ID: <19991221103952.2890.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.58] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01bf482d$4ba50f60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:41:33 -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 Where the auction goes 1N-P-2D*-P-2H---- 2H relates to hearts as hearts but does not convey any inference as to distribution of any suit, or concentration of honors that was not conveyed by the original 1N. To that end 2H does not relate to any suit. Now, consider the case with an overcall. If opener was oblivious to the OC then the situation is as if there was a pass. Or, if opener was aware of the OC then 2H indeed creates, or not, inferences as to his disposition toward the suit. Or, something else? Even with the agreements in effect I would be ill suited to pick which without knowledge of the hand. Yet the law requires such a judgement not forgetting that L26 is written to require 26A or 26B but not both. I am inclined to want to give the options of A & B, but feel constrained to pick but one. Merry Christmas Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 7:23 PM Subject: Law26A2 or Law26B? > Here's an easy on for those that know the answer. > > N E S W > 1NT P 2D* 2S > 2H > > * tfr. > > TD is called and rules Insufficient, could be conventional > bid and explains options including that there may be lead > penalties. East does not accept. North chooses to Pass. > > OK so far? > > North is now on lead and has no UI. No lead penalties. > However when South achieves the lead we have it seems the > lead penalties of L26 even tho' S has no UI other than North > would have completed the Tfr.absent the competition. > Do we apply Law26A2, specified suit not mentioned by > the same player in the legal auction, or Law 26B. > Remember that we have ruled that the 2H bid was likely > conventional. > Was the heart suit specified by the offender? > Anne > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 21 21:58:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:58:07 +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 VAA19272 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:58:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.141.230] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 120MzB-0004tg-00; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:57:46 +0000 Message-ID: <001701bf4ba2$53285300$e68d01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Martin Sinot" , References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:58:32 -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 Sinot wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > >Oh, I don't know. If a 1S opener relates to spades in that it promises > >between five and, say, ten of them, why does a 1NT opener not relate > >to spades in that it promises between two and, say, five of them? > > Because 1NT relates to every suit in that way, and thus is not related > to a specific suit. 1S relates to spades only. I think there are degrees of "relatedness" to consider here. A 1S opening might be said to be entirely related to spades - its degree of relatedness is 1. A 1NT opening might be said to be related to spades only to the extent that it relates to all suits - its degree of relatedness is 0.25. A 2D response to Stayman might be said to be related to diamonds not at all - its degree of relatedness is 0. It seems to me that the question is: what degree of relatedness is implied by the wording of L26? Perhaps the difficulty might be overcome if the first sentence of L26A were to read: If the withdrawn call conveyed information not previously available from the legal auction about any suit, and... David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 02:29:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 02:29:15 +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 CAA20179 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 02:29:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:28:39 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA05400 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:24:43 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:27:27 +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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Martin Sinot wrote: > >> David Burn wrote: >> >> >Oh, I don't know. If a 1S opener relates to spades in that it >promises >> >between five and, say, ten of them, why does a 1NT opener not >relate >> >to spades in that it promises between two and, say, five of them? >> >> Because 1NT relates to every suit in that way, and thus is not >related >> to a specific suit. 1S relates to spades only. > >I think there are degrees of "relatedness" to consider here. A 1S >opening might be said to be entirely related to spades - its degree of >relatedness is 1. A 1NT opening might be said to be related to spades >only to the extent that it relates to all suits - its degree of >relatedness is 0.25. A 2D response to Stayman might be said to be >related to diamonds not at all - its degree of relatedness is 0. It >seems to me that the question is: what degree of relatedness is >implied by the wording of L26? > >Perhaps the difficulty might be overcome if the first sentence of L26A >were to read: > >If the withdrawn call conveyed information not previously available >from the legal auction about any suit, and... L26A is about calls related to a specific suit. I think the idea is that you must be able to point at one or two suits of which something is said. Thus, a 1S-opening falls in that category - it is related to specifically spades, and nothing else. An unusual 2NT overcall is related specifically to both minor suits. An 1NT opening is not related to a specific suit; you cannot point at a suit of which something is said. A 2D response to Stayman would be related to both major suits (denies fourcard in both of them). But the 3D response to a Niemeijer 3C (3C after strong 2NT opening asks 4 or 5-card major; 3D shows four cards in one or both majors; 3H/S shows fivecard; 3NT denies fourcard in both majors) would be a 26B case; it tells something about the majors but you cannot point at a specific major of which something is said. That would be equivalent with the multi 2D, showing a weak two in either major suit (this is usually shown as the prototype of the 26B case). I think that would solve the dilemma. Try to point at one or two suits of which you can say something after the call (note that that info already might be available from an earlier call). If you can, it is 26A. If this is not possible, it is 26B. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 02:48:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 02:48:36 +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 CAA20333 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 02:48:27 +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 KAA13363 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:48:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA09553 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:48:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:48:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912211548.KAA09553@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Oh, I don't know. If a 1S opener relates to spades in that it promises > between five and, say, ten of them, why does a 1NT opener not relate > to spades in that it promises between two and, say, five of them? Because 1NT "relates to" all the other suits in the same way? Or because "relates to" does not mean promising length or values? Or because if it did, L26B would have no apparent purpose? Do you think a splinter bid "relates to" the short suit? (I do.) It also "relates to" the proposed trump suit, of course. Uncharacteristically, I am not certain of any of the above. I've already changed my mind once on the transfer completion and could be persuaded to revert to my initial opinion. But "relates to" seems awfully broad. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 03:34:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 03:34:23 +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 DAA20453 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 03:34:02 +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 120SEE-000HN7-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:33:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:39:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <001701bf4ba2$53285300$e68d01d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001701bf4ba2$53285300$e68d01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Martin Sinot wrote: > >> David Burn wrote: >> >> >Oh, I don't know. If a 1S opener relates to spades in that it >promises >> >between five and, say, ten of them, why does a 1NT opener not >relate >> >to spades in that it promises between two and, say, five of them? >> >> Because 1NT relates to every suit in that way, and thus is not >related >> to a specific suit. 1S relates to spades only. > >I think there are degrees of "relatedness" to consider here. A 1S >opening might be said to be entirely related to spades - its degree of >relatedness is 1. A 1NT opening might be said to be related to spades >only to the extent that it relates to all suits - its degree of >relatedness is 0.25. A 2D response to Stayman might be said to be >related to diamonds not at all - its degree of relatedness is 0. It >seems to me that the question is: what degree of relatedness is >implied by the wording of L26? > >Perhaps the difficulty might be overcome if the first sentence of L26A >were to read: > >If the withdrawn call conveyed information not previously available >from the legal auction about any suit, and... Fair comment. I think we should interpret it as though it does. -- David Stevenson Are you thinking of giving a pet for Liverpool, England, UK Xmas? If so, please read this article. Warning: you may find it upsetting. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/caz_chrp.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 03:55:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 03:24:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from home.pacprod.com (home.pacprod.com [209.78.120.199]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA20420 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 03:24:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from roadrunner.pacprod.com - 209.78.120.197 by home.pacprod.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1774.114.11); Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:25:44 -0800 Subject: Christmas Greetings from Nancy From: Nancy To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <02b8744251615c9HOME@home.pacprod.com> Date: 21 Dec 1999 08:25:44 -0800 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi! You have a Personalized Electronic Christmas Greeting Card from Nancy waiting for you at Pacific Products Gallery! To view your card, simply click on this address: http://roadrunner.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/GRCard.exe?cm=b5320c21081n to reach our home page, then click on the "View My Card" button. If the above link is not clickable, please try the link below: Please click here! Just connect to the above web site and then click on the "View My Card" button. The "View My Card" button is located on the left hand side of your screen. We'll keep your greeting card in our system for 90 days. Enjoy! ************************************* For some inspirational quotes, visit Pacific Products Gallery "Random Quotes" at: http://www.pacprod.com/quotes/quotes.htm A new quote is displayed every few seconds!!! ************************************** For a good laugh visit Pacific Products Gallery "Joke Of The Day" at: http://www.pacprod.com/jokes.pl Bookmark this page to come back for a new joke each day!!! ************************************** Fun facts about this day in history can be found at Pacific Products Gallery "Today In History" at: http://www.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/today.pl Bookmark this page for some fun facts everyday! ************************************** Place your bids! The Pacific Products Gallery Auction has great deals on gift and collectible items. Have a look by visiting: http://www.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/pacauction.pl Great deals are always being added to the auction! ************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 04:00:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 04:00:34 +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 EAA20532 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 04:00:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from pe3s01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.228] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 120SdQ-00047w-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:59:40 -0800 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Inhibiting question? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:03:43 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf4bd5$561383e0$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 One I got last night:- N E S W 1S P 1NT P 2D* P 2S ** P P P 2D was alerted. North did not ask. At his next turn to call ** S asked about the alerted 2D call and was told that it was a transfer to hearts. He showed interest and surprise and passed. Contract = 2S by West. North is on lead and leads a Diamond. Declarer made 6 tricks. The whole deal North 4 KJ6542 97 J543 West East KQ952 A8 AQ73 1098 843 J52 Q K10962 South J10763 void AKQ106 A87 You are called at the end of the play of the hand. How do you rule? Would it make any difference if I told you that the board was played only played three times. (3 table Howell) Twice elsewhere, in 2S, and the result was 7 tricks both on a diamond lead At this table declarer admitted to taking the wrong line at trick 10. The players E/W Grand masters, N/S well above average. South does a bit of TDing. Happy Christmas Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 04:56:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 04:56:40 +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 EAA20793 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 04:56:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.149.85] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 120TWJ-0000Xc-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:56:23 +0000 Message-ID: <001101bf4bdc$cd543740$559501d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:57:08 -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: > L26A is about calls related to a specific suit. I think the idea is > that you must be able to point at one or two suits of which something > is said. Thus, a 1S-opening falls in that category - it is related to > specifically spades, and nothing else. An unusual 2NT overcall is related > specifically to both minor suits. An 1NT opening is not related to a > specific suit; you cannot point at a suit of which something is said. > A 2D response to Stayman would be related to both major suits (denies > fourcard in both of them). But the 3D response to a Niemeijer 3C > (3C after strong 2NT opening asks 4 or 5-card major; 3D shows four > cards in one or both majors; 3H/S shows fivecard; 3NT denies fourcard > in both majors) would be a 26B case; it tells something about the > majors but you cannot point at a specific major of which something > is said. That would be equivalent with the multi 2D, showing a weak > two in either major suit (this is usually shown as the prototype of > the 26B case). > I think that would solve the dilemma. Try to point at one or two suits > of which you can say something after the call (note that that info > already might be available from an earlier call). If you can, it is > 26A. If this is not possible, it is 26B. I imagine that it is possible for an opening bid to relate to all four suits - consider, for example, the Precision 2D opening, which shows 4-4-1-4, 4-4-0-4, or (43)-1-5 shape. If that is the case, I do not see why a 1NT opening should not relate to all four suits equally. I am surprised to hear that the Multi is considered unrelated to any suit. Suppose that someone opens a Multi out of turn, withdraws it, substitutes a pass, and the opponents reach 3NT. May declarer now prohibit the lead of any suit? I would think it consistent with the original intent of L26 that leader be prohibited from leading a major, but free to choose among the minors. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 05:16:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 05:16:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from uno.minfod.com (uno.minfod.com [207.227.70.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA20846 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 05:16:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [207.227.70.80] (helo=JNichols) by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 120TqE-000298-00; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:16:58 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.19991221131508.00972470@popmid.minfod.com> X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:15:41 -0500 To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Inhibiting question? In-Reply-To: <01bf4bd5$561383e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:03 PM 12/21/99 , Anne Jones wrote: >One I got last night:- >N E S W > 1S >P 1NT P 2D* >P 2S ** P P >P >2D was alerted. North did not ask. At his next turn to call ** >S asked about the alerted 2D call and was told that it was >a transfer to hearts. He showed interest and surprise and >passed. >Contract = 2S by West. >North is on lead and leads a Diamond. >Declarer made 6 tricks. > >The whole deal > North > 4 > KJ6542 > 97 > J543 > >West East >KQ952 A8 >AQ73 1098 >843 J52 >Q K10962 > South > J10763 > void > AKQ106 > A87 > >You are called at the end of the play of the hand. > >How do you rule? > >Would it make any difference if I told you that > the board was played only played three times. >(3 table Howell) >Twice elsewhere, in 2S, and the result was 7 tricks >both on a diamond lead >At this table declarer admitted to taking the wrong >line at trick 10. >The players E/W Grand masters, N/S well above average. >South does a bit of TDing. Perhaps I am a bit dense here. Who called? What was the question to rule on? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 05:35:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 05:35:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA20889 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 05:35:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-58-215-166.s420.tnt2.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.215.166] helo=hdavis) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 120U74-0001eQ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:34:24 -0500 Message-ID: <00d801bf4be1$fdfffc80$a6d73ad0@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:34:07 -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: "Martin Sinot" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 11:17 AM Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? > Gordon Bower wrote: > > >Convention: A call that , by partnership understanding, conveys a meaning > >other than willingness to play in the denomination named, or high-card > >strength or length there. However, an agreement as to overall strength > >does not make a call a convention. > > > >2H conveys no meaning other than a willingness to play 2H. (Not > >enthusiasm, mind you.) Incontrovertibly not conventional, far as I am > >concerned. But, since North didn't elect to bid 3H, we are in Law 26 > >territory anyway. [If North has a good argument that he would have bid 3H > >had the director correctly informed him he could do so without penalty now > >we are at 82C.] > > I don't agree that North is willing to play 2H. North might or > might not want to play 2H, depending on his holding. He is simply > bidding 2H because he is obliged to do so. > In short, 2H means nothing. That is a convention. > > -- > Martin Sinot > Nijmegen > martin@spase.nl > As has been said before N might or might be eager to play in 2H. However, a willingness to play there is implied, as he has made a non-forcing call which may well prove to be the final contract. 2H conveys no information about the N hand that was not already available (unless mandatory super-accepts are played, but that's been covered also). However, although N was forced to make the call by system, system also demands that N be willing to play the contract, as the possibility of partner passing 2H out is an integral part of a transfer system. Note also that in a standard transfer situation N is not given the option of expressing a non-willingness to play in 2H, which may be part of the confusion. The willingness to play 2H is a requirement of system, not a positive affirmation by N. Rather than get into N's psychology, it's far simpler to ask if N has made a non-forcing call that could become the final contract. If so, then N is by definition willing, if not necessarily eager, to play in that denomination. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 06:21:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:21:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.alltel.net (mail.alltel.net [166.102.165.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21063 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:20:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from alltel.net (cras36p58.navix.net [205.242.158.61]) by mail.alltel.net (8.9.3/ALLTEL Messaging Service) with ESMTP id NAA28965 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:20:41 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <385FD367.B6AD8057@alltel.net> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:22:15 -0600 From: Norman Hostetler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-Alltel IS (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Query from OKBridge Discuss References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <385A7DB7.FE3BB6C7@alltel.net> > Norman Hostetler wrote: > > > xx > > > Qxxxxx > > > xxxx > > > x > > > > > > > This hand is too rare to worry about. Partner is capped at about 19 > > HCP, since > > he didn't open 2C. So this hand exists only when partner has 16-19 > > HCP, and > > opponents have 19-22 HCP distributed so that neither could open. If we > > now add > > in the requirement that they can make 4 or 5C, or that they have a > > successful > > sac (down no more than 2) over our making 4H (unlikely in itself), we > > come up > > with the probability that you'll never see this combination in your > > lifetime. > > In an extreme world the oppos hands (not everyone would open them) could > be: > QJ432 AT65 > - 5 > QJ32 A4 > A432 KT8765 > > and 7S will make. In a less extreme world it is easy to visualise many > hands where oppos can make 9 or 10 tricks in spades. Nor does every pair > wish to play different methods opposite fourth hand openers to those in > use elsewhere (this may be slightly sub-optimal but it eases memory). > There is nothing unplayable in a system where 1H-3/4H deny real values and > show 4 and 5 card suits respectively while "value raises" are put through > eg 3m. Playing these methods then 3D is the only option on the original > hand and passing 3H subsequently is not an LA. > > Tim West-Meads One of our principal handicaps is that we do not know much about the actual pair's methods. If 3D is game forcing by a passed hand, there obviously would be no LA to 4H. But the clear implication of the issue is that 3H can be passed within their methods. Similarly, we don't know much about alternatives. 3C, for example, would also be forcing, but we don't know what distinguishes the 3C/3D bids, or 2D/3D bids. For example, does 3D guarantee a heart fit, but 2D and 3C deny one? What kind of D suit does 3D promise? Given that Kxxx is possible, would partner not likely sign off in 3H if he is looking at xxx and two C losers, plus a possible M loser? Game is now very unlikely, unless our hand is maximum with KQxx in D, which would indeed justify going on to 4H. If the purpose of making a 3-level bid is to insure a plus by staying out of low percentage games, then bidding on to 4H with this hand is NOT a LA. You have pinpointed a H fit, a second suit, and a very good passed hand, and partner has said no. We have already shown everything we have, except maybe the fifth H, and I don't see that as sufficient reason to raise, given that our problem is much more likely to be top tricks. As far as the missing spade suit is concerned, the fewer opportunities you give the opposition to explore for that possibility, the better off you are. I believe that the auction through the 3H bid guarantees that partner holds some S values. The most likely S holdings for opponents are 5-3, 4-3, 4-4, and 5-2. Neither opponent has six (no weak 2). Over 3D, there is some risk that opponents methods may allow LHO to dbl, showing S plus some sort of C fit. At the four level, this is much less likely to happen. In a team game, I'm very willing to give up on the microscopic chances that we have a slam in order to insure that we get to a likely game. Your bidding scenarios are all possible ones, though I am more interested in the probable ones. In any case, I think that most of our differences can be explained by our lack of knowledge of the partnership's methods, which forces us to fill in our own assumptions. If I were the floor director, I would not rule until I had more information to fill in the blanks. Given the information we had, however, I believe that 1) 3D is invitational, and 2) hesitations in these kinds of situations always show extras, often in a hand that is slightly off-shape. So the probability is that Pass is a LA, and the correct contract is 3H. Norm Hostetler From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 06:38:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:38:09 +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 GAA21133 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:38:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06914; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:37:47 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001101bf4bdc$cd543740$559501d5@davidburn> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:33:38 -0500 To: "David Burn" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:57 PM +0000 12/21/99, David Burn wrote: >I am surprised to hear that the Multi is considered unrelated to any >suit. Suppose that someone opens a Multi out of turn, withdraws it, >substitutes a pass, and the opponents reach 3NT. May declarer now >prohibit the lead of any suit? I would think it consistent with the >original intent of L26 that leader be prohibited from leading a major, >but free to choose among the minors. When the rule was first created, the ACBL had a clarification somewhere between these two. If a bid relates to "either suit A or suit B", it does not relate to a specific suit unless the suit becomes clear from the context. Since Multi is not legal in most ACBL events, the ACBL's example was a Michaels cue-bid, but the situation would be similar. For example: East opens a Multi out of turn. South, who is dealer, opens 1NT and is raised to 3NT. L26B applies. East opens a Multi out of turn. South, who is dealer, opens 1S and is raised to 2S. South then bids 3NT, which is the final contract. It is clear from the auction that the Multi bidder could not have spades since N-S have shown eight; therefore, L26A applies with respect to hearts. There is some logic here. If East had opened the Multi, West could have bid based on that assumption. For example: W N E S 2D 2S(natural) P 4S P P West can now sacrifice in 5H, concluding from the auction that East has hearts. If West doesn't sacrifice, he will probably lead a heart. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 06:42:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:42:25 +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 GAA21158 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:42:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-19.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.19]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA05224; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:40:36 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <009d01bf4beb$0e71ccc0$13b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:38:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Only when a withdrawn call is related to specified suits by its meaning, L 26A applies. In all other cases we need to go to 26B. A 2D is not related to a specified suit, not being a multi, nor showing 4-4-4-1. The fact that later in the auction the suits are (or seem) specified doen't change that. We had the nice example of a withdrawn multi after which that player bid his void in the other major, nothing specified! And even the popular Dutch convention of an opening with 2 in a major showing a 5card in that major and 4+ in a minor has to be treated with 26B. That call is not related to JUST specified suits. ton -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 7:34 PM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? >Martin wrote: > >> L26A is about calls related to a specific suit. I think the idea is >> that you must be able to point at one or two suits of which >something >> is said. Thus, a 1S-opening falls in that category - it is related >to >> specifically spades, and nothing else. An unusual 2NT overcall is >related >> specifically to both minor suits. An 1NT opening is not related to a >> specific suit; you cannot point at a suit of which something is >said. >> A 2D response to Stayman would be related to both major suits >(denies >> fourcard in both of them). But the 3D response to a Niemeijer 3C >> (3C after strong 2NT opening asks 4 or 5-card major; 3D shows four >> cards in one or both majors; 3H/S shows fivecard; 3NT denies >fourcard >> in both majors) would be a 26B case; it tells something about the >> majors but you cannot point at a specific major of which something >> is said. That would be equivalent with the multi 2D, showing a weak >> two in either major suit (this is usually shown as the prototype of >> the 26B case). >> I think that would solve the dilemma. Try to point at one or two >suits >> of which you can say something after the call (note that that info >> already might be available from an earlier call). If you can, it is >> 26A. If this is not possible, it is 26B. > >I imagine that it is possible for an opening bid to relate to all four >suits - consider, for example, the Precision 2D opening, which shows >4-4-1-4, 4-4-0-4, or (43)-1-5 shape. If that is the case, I do not see >why a 1NT opening should not relate to all four suits equally. > >I am surprised to hear that the Multi is considered unrelated to any >suit. Suppose that someone opens a Multi out of turn, withdraws it, >substitutes a pass, and the opponents reach 3NT. May declarer now >prohibit the lead of any suit? I would think it consistent with the >original intent of L26 that leader be prohibited from leading a major, >but free to choose among the minors. > >David Burn >London, England > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 06:50:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:50:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from fe040.worldonline.dk (fe040.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA21188 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:50:21 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199912211950.GAA21188@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 2489 invoked by uid 0); 21 Dec 1999 19:50:08 -0000 Received: from 9.ppp1-15.image.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.77.9) by fe040.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 21 Dec 1999 19:50:08 -0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:45:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: > When a player does not alert a call, there should IMO be no > reason for his opponents to check the CC before assuming that the > call has a non-alertable meaning. The whole point of the alert > procedure is to avoid players having to check CCs or ask for > every call, so not checking a CC after a non-alert should not be > called "having failed". > > I do not like the idea that you may get a better score if you > check the CC than if you play on assuming that the non-alert was > correct. Even though you don't like it, this is case law in Denmark. I have recently shared our Danish National Appeal 99-AU-3 with BLML (specific reference for Jesper's benefit), where we ruled that a 3rd division player could not claim damage for a missing alert of a negative double of an overcall at the 3 level, even though the negative double is indisputably alertable in Denmark. We ruled, as you may recall, that the player should have protected himself and suspected that missing alert did not necessarily imply that this was a penalty double. > (And having written the sentence above, I suddenly realize that > it is probably the best argument for my point of view.) You could, I suppose, argue that our ruling in 99-AU-3 was about when damage can be claimed, not about what to assume when adjusting scores, so that your argument does not really contradict our ruling. -- Jens og Bodil, hjemme http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 10:00:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:00:35 +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 KAA21700 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:00:23 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26991 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:00:12 +0100 Received: from ip29.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.29), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpdb26986; Wed Dec 22 00:00:10 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:00:10 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <4qvv5so59s58hct2d28erfadfmpget1v56@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <38522013.ED6210D7@village.uunet.be> <0jjn5skd5alhandnkr60p5nap3c7da4fg3@bilbo.dit.dk> <3.0.1.32.19991220085009.00755260@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: 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 KAA21701 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 00:52:45 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > You are damaged when you fail to reach the equity of the situation >that existed just before the infraction. That does not include the >lucky gains that might have accrued from odd happenings - such as >realising the oppos are having a misunderstanding. You have succeded in making it quite clear to me that this must be correct in the case of odd happenings that are unpredictable, like a typical mannerism. But in my view the non-alert primarily differs from an ordinary mannerism in its predictability: we know that it will be there whenever the player believes his partner's call to be non-alertable. And that seems to me to make it a less odd happening. It is not an odd happening that the player who has forgotten his system passes partner's forcing call; the non-alert is just as predictable as - and IMO no more odd than - that pass. > Redress is meant to return to that equity, so it does not include such >oddities. Thus an adjustment should not assume that the misinformed >player had such odd advantages. At least we seem to have come to a point where our disagreement is reduced to a question of the degree of odd-ness of a non-alert. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 10:00:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:00:34 +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 KAA21699 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:00:23 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26990 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:00:12 +0100 Received: from ip29.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.29), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda26986; Wed Dec 22 00:00:09 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:00:09 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199912211950.GAA21188@octavia.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <199912211950.GAA21188@octavia.anu.edu.au> 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 KAA21702 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:45:40 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" wrote: >Jesper wrote: > >> When a player does not alert a call, there should IMO be no >> reason for his opponents to check the CC before assuming that the >> call has a non-alertable meaning. The whole point of the alert >> procedure is to avoid players having to check CCs or ask for >> every call, so not checking a CC after a non-alert should not be >> called "having failed". >> >> I do not like the idea that you may get a better score if you >> check the CC than if you play on assuming that the non-alert was >> correct. > >Even though you don't like it, this is case law in Denmark. I have >recently shared our Danish National Appeal 99-AU-3 with BLML (specific >reference for Jesper's benefit), where we ruled that a 3rd division >player could not claim damage for a missing alert of a negative >double of an overcall at the 3 level, even though the negative double >is indisputably alertable in Denmark. > >We ruled, as you may recall, that the player should have protected >himself and suspected that missing alert did not necessarily imply >that this was a penalty double. Thank you for pointing out that what I wrote could easily be interpreted as also covering that case. That was certainly not my intention: I agree completely with the ruling of the Danish NA that Jens mentions. My comments quoted above were intended to cover only the case where there is no particular reason to suspect that the non-alert could be wrong. I am not arguing that you never have to protect yourself. But there are obviously many situations in which you do not have to protect yourself (otherwise the alert procedure would be meaningless). A ruling that was there was damage by MI must surely imply that the player did not have a duty to protect himself in that situation - and that should then also be the basis for adjustment. >> (And having written the sentence above, I suddenly realize that >> it is probably the best argument for my point of view.) > >You could, I suppose, argue that our ruling in 99-AU-3 was about when >damage can be claimed, not about what to assume when adjusting >scores, so that your argument does not really contradict our ruling. Exactly: I could and I do. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 10:02:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:02:58 +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 KAA21731 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:02:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.197] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 120YIi-000EQr-00; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 23:02:40 +0000 Message-ID: <001901bf4c07$8be53680$c55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <3.0.1.32.19991220083437.0074e1e0@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 23:01:20 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? At 02:54 PM 12/18/99 -0000, Anne wrote: > -------------------- \x/ ---------------- > >Convention - 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a >meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named >(or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length >(three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall >strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender's play that >serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. > --------------- \x/ ------------- Count me in the camp that believes that 2H "conveys a... willingness to play in the denomination named", notwithstanding that such willingness may be based solely on the message of partner's 2D, which said, in effect, "you should be willing to play in 2H regardless of your hand". +=+ The first question in my mind is whether 2H conveys any meaning at all; a call which does not convey a meaning cannot be conventional. At first sight it appears to me that a call made mechanically as required by partner's conventional call has no meaning and is not, therefore, itself conventional. Taking this a stage further, the thought also implies that if after opponent's intervention a free 2H bid shows a holding in the suit, the bid is still not conventional. There are other conventions which act upon the principle "bid x, partner, and then....". I doubt that the player who in response bids x mechanically can be said to be making a conventional bid. I see no meaning conveyed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 10:20:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:20:49 +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 KAA21790 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:20:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from p87s02a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.114.136] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1209as-0004u9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:39:47 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Inhibiting question? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 23:24:28 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf4c0a$871d6de0$887293c3@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 S. Nichols To: Anne Jones ; BLML Date: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 6:15 PM Subject: Re: Inhibiting question? >At 12:03 PM 12/21/99 , Anne Jones wrote: >>One I got last night:- >>N E S W >> 1S >>P 1NT P 2D* >>P 2S ** P P >>P >>2D was alerted. North did not ask. At his next turn to call ** >>S asked about the alerted 2D call and was told that it was >>a transfer to hearts. He showed interest and surprise and >>passed. >>Contract = 2S by West. >>North is on lead and leads a Diamond. >>Declarer made 6 tricks. >> >>The whole deal >> North >> 4 >> KJ6542 >> 97 >> J543 >> >>West East >>KQ952 A8 >>AQ73 1098 >>843 J52 >>Q K10962 >> South >> J10763 >> void >> AKQ106 >> A87 >> >>You are called at the end of the play of the hand. >> >>How do you rule? >> >>Would it make any difference if I told you that >> the board was played only played three times. >>(3 table Howell) >>Twice elsewhere, in 2S, and the result was 7 tricks >>both on a diamond lead >>At this table declarer admitted to taking the wrong >>line at trick 10. >>The players E/W Grand masters, N/S well above average. >>South does a bit of TDing. > > >Perhaps I am a bit dense here. Who called? What was the question to rule on? E/W called the TD and asked for a ruling on possible use of UI in North's selection of a Diamond lead after South had drawn attention to the Diamond bid by West. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 11:27:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:27:54 +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 LAA22015 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:27:46 +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 TAA05273 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:27:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA10138 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:27:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:27:38 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912220027.TAA10138@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "ton kooijman" > And even the popular Dutch > convention of an opening with 2 in a major showing a 5card in that major and > 4+ in a minor has to be treated with 26B. That call is not related to JUST > specified suits. Hmmm... this is interesting. Have I been reading L26 wrong? To be clear, let's assume a 2S bid that shows spades and an unspecified minor. Let's also assume the bid is withdrawn, and the player doesn't bid again. (Maybe he overlooked RHO's 3NT opening.) My reading was that the test of L26 A vs B is the short phrase at the beginning of L26A: "if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits." In this case, surely 2S relates to spades, even if it also relates to some other, unspecified suit. Thus I would end up in L26A2. You seem to be saying that the test is the short phrase at the beginning _plus_ the conditions of L26A1 or L26A2. (And in retrospect, I think David Burn was saying the same thing.) The placement of 'and' at the end of the phrase suggests you are correct. Even with that, I can't see how you end up in 26B in this example. There is nothing anywhere about "related to unspecified suits," and it seems to me that all the conditions of L26A2 are fulfilled. The conditions seem to require only the fact of "relatedness" to at least one "specified" suit. I don't think this changes the answer to the original problem, no matter what you believe the answer to be. Certainly no suit other than hearts is specified, so the question is whether you believe the transfer completion is "related to" hearts or not. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 11:59:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:00:18 +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 LAA21914 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:00:06 +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 120ZBz-0002p7-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 23:59:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:00:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Inhibiting question? References: <01bf4bd5$561383e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <4.1.19991221131508.00972470@popmid.minfod.com> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991221131508.00972470@popmid.minfod.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John S. Nichols wrote: >At 12:03 PM 12/21/99 , Anne Jones wrote: >>One I got last night:- >>N E S W >> 1S >>P 1NT P 2D* >>P 2S ** P P >>P >>2D was alerted. North did not ask. At his next turn to call ** >>S asked about the alerted 2D call and was told that it was >>a transfer to hearts. He showed interest and surprise and >>passed. >>Contract = 2S by West. >>North is on lead and leads a Diamond. >>Declarer made 6 tricks. >> >>The whole deal >> North >> 4 >> KJ6542 >> 97 >> J543 >> >>West East >>KQ952 A8 >>AQ73 1098 >>843 J52 >>Q K10962 >> South >> J10763 >> void >> AKQ106 >> A87 >> >>You are called at the end of the play of the hand. >> >>How do you rule? >> >>Would it make any difference if I told you that >> the board was played only played three times. >>(3 table Howell) >>Twice elsewhere, in 2S, and the result was 7 tricks >>both on a diamond lead >>At this table declarer admitted to taking the wrong >>line at trick 10. >>The players E/W Grand masters, N/S well above average. >>South does a bit of TDing. > > >Perhaps I am a bit dense here. Who called? What was the question > to rule on? > I got it wrong first time I read it, and wrote sa reply that I had to delete! When Anne wrote >>2D was alerted. North did not ask. At his next turn to call ** ... she did not mean at North's next turn to call, she meant *South's* next turn to call. Thus South asked: showed interest: showed surprise: passed - and, what a surprise, North led a diamond. -- David Stevenson Are you thinking of giving a pet for Liverpool, England, UK Xmas? If so, please read this article. Warning: you may find it upsetting. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/caz_chrp.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 13:00:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:00:19 +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 LAA21913 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:00:04 +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 120ZBz-0002p6-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 23:59:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:55:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <00d801bf4be1$fdfffc80$a6d73ad0@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <00d801bf4be1$fdfffc80$a6d73ad0@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >As has been said before N might or might be eager to play in 2H. >However, a willingness to play there is implied, as he has made a >non-forcing call which may well prove to be the final contract. 2H >conveys no information about the N hand that was not already available >(unless mandatory super-accepts are played, but that's been covered >also). However, although N was forced to make the call by system, >system also demands that N be willing to play the contract, as the >possibility of partner passing 2H out is an integral part of a transfer >system. Note also that in a standard transfer situation N is not given >the option of expressing a non-willingness to play in 2H, which may be >part of the confusion. The willingness to play 2H is a requirement of >system, not a positive affirmation by N. > >Rather than get into N's psychology, it's far simpler to ask if N has >made a non-forcing call that could become the final contract. If so, >then N is by definition willing, if not necessarily eager, to play in >that denomination. Is there anyone out there who plays Bridge? Furthermore, is there anyone out there who is interested in any slight way in regulating the game of Bridge? Or are we just going to have jolly semantic arguments that mean nothing but keep us happy for hours? When BLML started I thought how good it was for the game. Nowadays, I am not so sure. The reason for writing a Law book is not to entertain people for hours considering how the wording is imperfect. Right. Everyone agreed that a convention is a call that does not show a willingness to play there? Good. Everyone agreed that if your partner is allowed to pass then you might find yourself playing there? Good. Everyone agreed that if you are prepared to play there you are willing to play there? Good. Everyone agreed that no non-forcing call is ever a convention? Wonderful. So, responses to Blackwood are not conventional, responses to Stayman are never conventional, Precision diamond openings that may be a void are never conventional, and so on. I do not care whether what people have argued on this list recently is right or wrong. But anyone who thinks it has the slightest connection with running, organising, ruling or regulating the game of bridge is seriously out of their tree. It is true that by clever semantic arguments you can make a nonsense of the Definition of Convention: all that proves is that the Lawmakers did not get it exactly right, which we have known for some time anyway. So what? Are you seriously suggesting we should use such a conclusion? Why? Get real. This article is aimed at a number of people on this list and not specifically at Hirsch. It is also not aimed at the subject of the thread but at the considerations of a convention which have crept into the thread. -- David Stevenson Are you thinking of giving a pet for Liverpool, England, UK Xmas? If so, please read this article. Warning: you may find it upsetting. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/caz_chrp.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 14:07:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:07:26 +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 OAA22381 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:07:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2inisrr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.115.123]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA08319 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:06:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <386041E0.B2361026@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:13:36 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <00d801bf4be1$fdfffc80$a6d73ad0@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > [Big snip] > > I do not care whether what people have argued on this list recently is > right or wrong. But anyone who thinks it has the slightest connection > with running, organising, ruling or regulating the game of bridge is > seriously out of their tree. Out of my tree I am, then. > > It is true that by clever semantic arguments you can make a nonsense > of the Definition of Convention: all that proves is that the Lawmakers > did not get it exactly right, which we have known for some time anyway. > So what? Are you seriously suggesting we should use such a conclusion? > Why? I didn't see people trying to do that. I saw people trying to come to grips with the problem. > > Get real. > > This article is aimed at a number of people on this list and not > specifically at Hirsch. It is also not aimed at the subject of the > thread but at the considerations of a convention which have crept into > the thread. Thank you for criticizing people's intelligence in bulk, and not aiming your ad hominem attack against just one member of the list. Much better. Gratuitous bridge content: I occasionally play a system which requires frequent tactical raises. I open 1H, pard bids 2H, and this could be on a wide range of hands. In fact, we may be on a 4-2 fit with 24 HCP between us; or the occasional 4-0 fit with 8 HCP between us. However, opener is expected to pass almost all the time. It is an offer to play 2H. Perhaps a *bad* offer, but an offer nonetheless. Is this a convention? --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 15:17:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 15:17:31 +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 PAA22568 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 15:17:23 +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 120dD5-0007h0-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 04:17:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 04:05:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <00d801bf4be1$fdfffc80$a6d73ad0@hdavis> <386041E0.B2361026@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <386041E0.B2361026@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >[Big snip] >> >> I do not care whether what people have argued on this list recently is >> right or wrong. But anyone who thinks it has the slightest connection >> with running, organising, ruling or regulating the game of bridge is >> seriously out of their tree. > >Out of my tree I am, then. Your choice. >> It is true that by clever semantic arguments you can make a nonsense >> of the Definition of Convention: all that proves is that the Lawmakers >> did not get it exactly right, which we have known for some time anyway. >> So what? Are you seriously suggesting we should use such a conclusion? >> Why? > >I didn't see people trying to do that. I saw people trying to come to >grips with the problem. No, they are not. They are having a totally useless semantic argument that they *know* is of no gain to the game of bridge. >> Get real. >> >> This article is aimed at a number of people on this list and not >> specifically at Hirsch. It is also not aimed at the subject of the >> thread but at the considerations of a convention which have crept into >> the thread. > >Thank you for criticizing people's intelligence in bulk, and not aiming >your ad hominem attack against just one member of the list. Much better. I attack one person when they say something completely stupid or demeaning to the game of bridge or deleterious to the understanding of the laws. It is not personal. I have been advised to do so: I shall continue to do so until I see a better way. In this thread and other related ones we have several people who have lost touch with reality. I therefore say so. You want tact? That was drummed out of me three [?] years ago by the Americans on this list. I would point out that these days I do not consider the Americans produce the most tactless arguments any more. >Gratuitous bridge content: > >I occasionally play a system which requires frequent tactical raises. I >open 1H, pard bids 2H, and this could be on a wide range of hands. In >fact, we may be on a 4-2 fit with 24 HCP between us; or the occasional >4-0 fit with 8 HCP between us. > >However, opener is expected to pass almost all the time. It is an offer >to play 2H. Perhaps a *bad* offer, but an offer nonetheless. Is this a >convention? Not in my view: it's an offer to play there. Which is more than can be said for these other idiocies. When I show 0 or 3 out of 5 aces I am *not* "offering to play there", though, of course, I may do so. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 21:39:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:39:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from brahma.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@gateway-brahma.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23375 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:39:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from idc by brahma.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 1.92 #5) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 120jAZ-0003kf-00; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:38:59 +0000 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: 300lbs Man Does the Splits: News at 11 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Jesper Dybdal's message of Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:00:09 +0100 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:38:59 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:45:40 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" > wrote: > > >Jesper wrote: > > > >> When a player does not alert a call, there should IMO be no > >> reason for his opponents to check the CC before assuming that the > >> call has a non-alertable meaning. The whole point of the alert > >> procedure is to avoid players having to check CCs or ask for > >> every call, so not checking a CC after a non-alert should not be > >> called "having failed". > >> > >> I do not like the idea that you may get a better score if you > >> check the CC than if you play on assuming that the non-alert was > >> correct. > > > >Even though you don't like it, this is case law in Denmark. I have > >recently shared our Danish National Appeal 99-AU-3 with BLML (specific > >reference for Jesper's benefit), where we ruled that a 3rd division > >player could not claim damage for a missing alert of a negative > >double of an overcall at the 3 level, even though the negative double > >is indisputably alertable in Denmark. > > > >We ruled, as you may recall, that the player should have protected > >himself and suspected that missing alert did not necessarily imply > >that this was a penalty double. > > Thank you for pointing out that what I wrote could easily be > interpreted as also covering that case. That was certainly not > my intention: I agree completely with the ruling of the Danish NA > that Jens mentions. I would agree with the ruling only with this proviso: that a player who looks at an opponent's CC at their turn to bid and then passes is not deemed to have (potentially) passed UI to their partner. Otherwise, in our desire to preempt bridge lawyers, we are in danger of punishing entirely innocent players. --- "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 Dec 22 22:00:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:00:41 +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 WAA23421 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:00:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.138.212] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 120jVE-00063d-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:00:21 +0000 Message-ID: <001101bf4c6b$d92426e0$d48a01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001701bf4ba2$53285300$e68d01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:01:06 -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 Stevenson wrote: > >Perhaps the difficulty might be overcome if the first sentence of L26A > >were to read: > > > >If the withdrawn call conveyed information not previously available > >from the legal auction about any suit, and... > > Fair comment. I think we should interpret it as though it does. Having read the comments about the Multi and the Muiderberg 2M openings, and having thought about the Precision 2D opening and related topics, I am not sure that even this will work. As I understand what Ton Kooijman wrote, a 2S opening showing spades and a minor is not considered related to spades in the sense of L26A, so that L26B is invoked in cases where such a call is withdrawn. I am surprised at this, since it is certainly not how I would have interpreted the Laws (I do not know whether there is any guidance on this point for English or British ACs and TDs). I suppose we might ask: what do we actually want to happen, and why? Then we might ask: do the Laws in fact say that this happens? (This is to stop DWS mounting one of his favourite hobby-horses, that our job is to rule in accordance with what the Laws really say, not what we think they ought to say.) Well, there are a number of cases (the bid marked * is made out of turn and then withdrawn): N E S W 1S* 1NT P 3NT AP If 1S is natural, we want declarer to have rights over the spade suit (prohibit or require) and over no other suits. Do the Laws say that this happens? I believe so (L26A2). If 1S showed clubs, we want declarer to have rights over the club suit and over no other suits. Do the Laws say this? I believe so (L26A2). If 1S was a Fert and showed a pass, I am not sure what we want. In equity, I would say that we did not want a lead penalty to apply, but do the Laws say this? No, I think that they allow declarer to forbid any suit but not require any suit (L26B). If 1S showed a hand that would open 1m in a natural system, what do we want? In equity, we want to stop the opening leader guessing his partner's minor and leading it. Do the Laws say this? I do not believe so, but there is a distinct lack of clarity among the contributions to this thread. Ton's view, as I understand it, is that declarer may forbid anything but not require anything (L26B). This is probably the best we can do in terms of equity, since declarer is at liberty to guess North's minor and tell South not to lead it. Declarer is not in as good a position as he would be if North had opened his minor naturally, but East wanted South to lead the suit anyway; there is probably nothing we can do about this other than to regard it as rub of the green. Another view is that the 1S opening is "related" to both clubs and diamonds, so that East has rights over both of those suits - this may lead to inequity in that East could require South to lead the minor that North would not have opened, thus improving his position compared to what it would be had North opened his suit naturally. If 1S showed a weak no trump, what do we want? Again, in equity I suppose that we might not want a lead penalty at all, but the Laws require us (in my view) to apply L26B. I have suggested that a 1NT opening might be considered "related" to all suits; I do not suggest that the relation is strong enough to give declarer rights over all suits, but it is worth considering perhaps that the lead of a minor is more likely to be successful than the lead of a major (all other things being equal). I am beginning to wonder whether it might not be more practical to dump a lot of this into the laws dealing with any other kind of UI. TDs and ACs are able to make judgements about exactly what opening leads may be suggested over others by withdrawn calls whatever they mean, so it might be possible to write a simplified L26: When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different final call for that turn, then the offender's partner may not choose from among logical alternative opening leads one that may have been suggested over another by the information arising from the withdrawn call. After all, that in my opinion is what we really want to happen! David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 23:18:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:18:59 +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 XAA23615 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:18:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA02945 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:18:11 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Dec 22 13:18:07 1999 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJSXTL2WY8005680@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:17:40 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:17:40 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:17:38 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? To: "'David J. Grabiner'" , David Burn , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2DF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David J. Grabiner [mailto:grabiner@wcnet.org] > Verzonden: dinsdag 21 december 1999 20:34 > Aan: David Burn; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > > When the rule was first created, the ACBL had a clarification > somewhere > between these two. If a bid relates to "either suit A or > suit B", it does > not relate to a specific suit unless the suit becomes clear from the > context. > > Since Multi is not legal in most ACBL events, the ACBL's example was a > Michaels cue-bid, but the situation would be similar. For example: > > East opens a Multi out of turn. South, who is dealer, opens > 1NT and is > raised to 3NT. L26B applies. > > East opens a Multi out of turn. South, who is dealer, opens 1S and is > raised to 2S. South then bids 3NT, which is the final > contract. It is > clear from the auction that the Multi bidder could not have > spades since > N-S have shown eight; therefore, L26A applies with respect to hearts. I am not sure what David G. is describing here: the ACBL-interpretation or his own one, but the laws do say something else, as I tried to explain in my previous message on this subject, yesterday. A multi does not specify a suit or suits and therefore 26A can't apply, regardless of what happens after the withdrawn call. The law is as clear as a law can be, so I don't understand why even here we seem to have different opinions. ton > > There is some logic here. If East had opened the Multi, West > could have > bid based on that assumption. For example: > > W N E S > 2D 2S(natural) > P 4S P P > > West can now sacrifice in 5H, concluding from the auction > that East has > hearts. If West doesn't sacrifice, he will probably lead a heart. What logic are you coming up with? When 2D had been OOT and withdrawn south may forbid any lead, hearts included. So, what is wrong with applying 26B then? ton > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 23:30:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:30:33 +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 XAA23657 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:30:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA28368 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:30:15 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA02119 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:30:14 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:30:13 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 MAA09268 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:30:11 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA27750 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:30:10 GMT Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:30:10 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199912221230.MAA27750@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I am beginning to wonder whether it might not be more practical to > dump a lot of this into the laws dealing with any other kind of UI. > TDs and ACs are able to make judgements about exactly what opening > leads may be suggested over others by withdrawn calls whatever they > mean, so it might be possible to write a simplified L26: > > When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a > different final call for that turn, then the offender's partner may > not choose from among logical alternative opening leads one that may > have been suggested over another by the information arising from the > withdrawn call. > > After all, that in my opinion is what we really want to happen! > > David Burn > London, England > The withdrwawn call is already UI (L16C), so we would not need L26 at all. The current effect of L26 is to force a lead which was not even a LA, or to prohibit a lead which was the only LA. The 1997 Laws introduced UI in to a number of situations (withdrawn calls, penalty cards) which are also subject to mechanical penalties. I guess that these mechanical penalties were introduced before the current L16A was written, and that the mechanical penalties were meant to provide the NOS with sufficient recompense for the advantage that would otherwise be gained by the OS from their infraction. Before 1997, the mechanical penalties made the director's job easier: a clear penalty was prescribed by law and that was that -- in almost all cases equity was more than restored for the NOS. Now the TD has to check for use of UI and consequent damage in these situations, so the mechanical penalty has not served to avoid consideration of what might have happened. The situation is very silly for an opening lead out of turn. Declarer has lots (5) options, one of which (post-1997) is to require a lead from LHO and leave the lead out of turn as a penalty card but LHO must not lead a card suggested by the fact that RHO lead the card he lead out of turn if he (LHO) has logical alternative leads. For practical purposes, if RHO leads (out of turn) DA (or any card suggesting a strong diamond holding), then declarer who wishes to ban a diamond lead does not need to exercise that option (as LHO is very likely to logical alternatives to a diamond lead), so declarer can leave DA as a penalty card and still avoid a diamond lead. I think players and TD were happier with more mechanical penalties in situations which were not also subject to UI considerations. The alternative is to remove the mechanical penalties, and leave UI and/or consequent damage to deal with many of these situations: withdrawn calls, penalty cards, established revokes. Happy Christmas and best wishes for the last year of the second millenium. [ Even my daughter knows that if you start at the beginning of year one and go on a thousand years twice, you reach the end of year 2000. ] Robin -- Robin Barker | Eail: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CISE, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 22 23:31:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA23675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:31:14 +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 XAA23670 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:31:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.157.80] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 120kuu-0004aK-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:30:57 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01bf4c78$80f09460$509d01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00d801bf4be1$fdfffc80$a6d73ad0@hdavis> <386041E0.B2361026@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:31:41 -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 Stevenson wrote: > I do not care whether what people have argued on this list recently is > right or wrong. But anyone who thinks it has the slightest connection > with running, organising, ruling or regulating the game of bridge is > seriously out of their tree. And much else in the same gangrenous vein. We may hope, I suppose, that our distinguished and valued contributor arrives at the view that just because he does not want to talk about something, this should not necessarily mean that the rest of us don't. After all, he still has over a year of the current millennium in which to come round to this standpoint. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 00:17:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:17:07 +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 AAA23837 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:16:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id OAA03500 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:16:45 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Dec 22 14:16:45 1999 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJSZUQ4O620054TM@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:15:51 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:15:51 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:15:48 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? To: "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2E0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] > Verzonden: woensdag 22 december 1999 1:28 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > > > From: "ton kooijman" > > And even the popular Dutch > > convention of an opening with 2 in a major showing a 5card > in that major and > > 4+ in a minor has to be treated with 26B. That call is not > related to JUST > > specified suits. > > Hmmm... this is interesting. Have I been reading L26 wrong? To be > clear, let's assume a 2S bid that shows spades and an > unspecified minor. > Let's also assume the bid is withdrawn, and the player > doesn't bid again. > (Maybe he overlooked RHO's 3NT opening.) > > My reading was that the test of L26 A vs B is the short phrase at the > beginning of L26A: "if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit > or suits." In this case, surely 2S relates to spades, even if it also > relates to some other, unspecified suit. Thus I would end up > in L26A2. > > You seem to be saying that the test is the short phrase at > the beginning > _plus_ the conditions of L26A1 or L26A2. (And in retrospect, I think > David Burn was saying the same thing.) The placement of 'and' at the > end of the phrase suggests you are correct. > > Even with that, I can't see how you end up in 26B in this example. 2spades showing spades and a minor is not related to specified suits or a specified suit in my opinion. It is related to spades and an unspecified suit. That brings me in 26B. This approach also avoids the combination of applying 26A and B at the same time, which is problematic since they seem to contradict each other, with B just forbidding and A also demanding. Bermuda is nearing. We could ask for an interpretation. ton > There is nothing anywhere about "related to unspecified suits," and it > seems to me that all the conditions of L26A2 are fulfilled. The > conditions seem to require only the fact of "relatedness" to at least > one "specified" suit. > > I don't think this changes the answer to the original > problem, no matter > what you believe the answer to be. Certainly no suit other > than hearts > is specified, so the question is whether you believe the transfer > completion is "related to" hearts or not. > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 00:28:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:28:43 +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 AAA23887 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:28:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id OAA10100 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:28:26 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Dec 22 14:28:26 1999 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJT0AA3ECQ0057H3@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:27:37 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:27:36 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:27:34 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2E1@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David Burn [mailto:Dburn@btinternet.com] > Verzonden: woensdag 22 december 1999 12:01 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > >Perhaps the difficulty might be overcome if the first sentence of > L26A > > >were to read: > > > > > >If the withdrawn call conveyed information not previously available > > >from the legal auction about any suit, and... > > > > Fair comment. I think we should interpret it as though it does. > > Having read the comments about the Multi and the Muiderberg 2M > openings, and having thought about the Precision 2D opening and > related topics, I am not sure that even this will work. As I > understand what Ton Kooijman wrote, a 2S opening showing spades and a > minor is not considered related to spades in the sense of L26A, so > that L26B is invoked in cases where such a call is withdrawn. I am > surprised at this, since it is certainly not how I would have > interpreted the Laws (I do not know whether there is any guidance on > this point for English or British ACs and TDs). > > I suppose we might ask: what do we actually want to happen, and why? > Then we might ask: do the Laws in fact say that this happens? (This is > to stop DWS mounting one of his favourite hobby-horses, that our job > is to rule in accordance with what the Laws really say, not what we > think they ought to say.) Well, there are a number of cases (the bid > marked * is made out of turn and then withdrawn): > > N E S W > 1S* 1NT P 3NT > AP > > If 1S is natural, we want declarer to have rights over the spade suit > (prohibit or require) and over no other suits. Do the Laws say that > this happens? I believe so (L26A2). > > If 1S showed clubs, we want declarer to have rights over the club suit > and over no other suits. Do the Laws say this? I believe so (L26A2). > > If 1S was a Fert and showed a pass, I am not sure what we want. In > equity, I would say that we did not want a lead penalty to apply, but > do the Laws say this? No, I think that they allow declarer to forbid > any suit but not require any suit (L26B). > > If 1S showed a hand that would open 1m in a natural system, what do we > want? In equity, we want to stop the opening leader guessing his > partner's minor and leading it. Do the Laws say this? I do not believe > so, but there is a distinct lack of clarity among the contributions to > this thread. Ton's view, as I understand it, is that declarer may > forbid anything but not require anything (L26B). This is probably the > best we can do in terms of equity, since declarer is at liberty to > guess North's minor and tell South not to lead it. Declarer is not in > as good a position as he would be if North had opened his minor > naturally, but East wanted South to lead the suit anyway; there is > probably nothing we can do about this other than to regard it as rub > of the green. Another view is that the 1S opening is "related" to both > clubs and diamonds, so that East has rights over both of those suits - > this may lead to inequity in that East could require South to lead the > minor that North would not have opened, thus improving his position > compared to what it would be had North opened his suit naturally. > > If 1S showed a weak no trump, what do we want? Again, in equity I > suppose that we might not want a lead penalty at all, but the Laws > require us (in my view) to apply L26B. I have suggested that a 1NT > opening might be considered "related" to all suits; I do not suggest > that the relation is strong enough to give declarer rights over all > suits, but it is worth considering perhaps that the lead of a minor is > more likely to be successful than the lead of a major (all other > things being equal). > > I am beginning to wonder whether it might not be more practical to > dump a lot of this into the laws dealing with any other kind of UI. > TDs and ACs are able to make judgements about exactly what opening > leads may be suggested over others by withdrawn calls whatever they > mean, so it might be possible to write a simplified L26: > > When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a > different final call for that turn, then the offender's partner may > not choose from among logical alternative opening leads one that may > have been suggested over another by the information arising from the > withdrawn call. > > After all, that in my opinion is what we really want to happen! > > David Burn > London, England Sounds good and seems not too progressive. Can anybody tell me why partner sohuld be required to lead a spade when a just spades showing bid OOT has been withdrawn? Is there any relation with UI when requiring such a lead? ton > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 01:35:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:35:14 +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 BAA24149 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:35:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 15:34:49 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA18062 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:12:00 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:14:31 +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 David Burn wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >Perhaps the difficulty might be overcome if the first sentence of >L26A >> >were to read: >> > >> >If the withdrawn call conveyed information not previously available >> >from the legal auction about any suit, and... >> >> Fair comment. I think we should interpret it as though it does. > >Having read the comments about the Multi and the Muiderberg 2M >openings, and having thought about the Precision 2D opening and >related topics, I am not sure that even this will work. As I >understand what Ton Kooijman wrote, a 2S opening showing spades and a >minor is not considered related to spades in the sense of L26A, so >that L26B is invoked in cases where such a call is withdrawn. I am >surprised at this, since it is certainly not how I would have >interpreted the Laws (I do not know whether there is any guidance on >this point for English or British ACs and TDs). That surprises me too. After all, the Muiderberg 2S-opening does promise spades, so you can point at a suit about which something is said. >I suppose we might ask: what do we actually want to happen, and why? >Then we might ask: do the Laws in fact say that this happens? (This is >to stop DWS mounting one of his favourite hobby-horses, that our job >is to rule in accordance with what the Laws really say, not what we >think they ought to say.) Well, there are a number of cases (the bid >marked * is made out of turn and then withdrawn): > >N E S W >1S* 1NT P 3NT >AP > >If 1S is natural, we want declarer to have rights over the spade suit >(prohibit or require) and over no other suits. Do the Laws say that >this happens? I believe so (L26A2). Indeed. >If 1S showed clubs, we want declarer to have rights over the club suit >and over no other suits. Do the Laws say this? I believe so (L26A2). Right. >If 1S was a Fert and showed a pass, I am not sure what we want. In >equity, I would say that we did not want a lead penalty to apply, but >do the Laws say this? No, I think that they allow declarer to forbid >any suit but not require any suit (L26B). You mean a Dutch spade or something, I guess. It is not related to a single suit; it promises 13 cards ;-) and less than an opening. There is indeed a case not to apply a lead penalty, but the Laws do not allow this. So again OK. Note that a pass out of turn (showing nothing but pass) would also invoke L26B if it had not been stopped in the Law about the pass out of turn, preventing it from arriving at 26B. >If 1S showed a hand that would open 1m in a natural system, what do we >want? In equity, we want to stop the opening leader guessing his >partner's minor and leading it. Do the Laws say this? I do not believe >so, but there is a distinct lack of clarity among the contributions to >this thread. Ton's view, as I understand it, is that declarer may >forbid anything but not require anything (L26B). This is probably the >best we can do in terms of equity, since declarer is at liberty to >guess North's minor and tell South not to lead it. Declarer is not in >as good a position as he would be if North had opened his minor >naturally, but East wanted South to lead the suit anyway; there is >probably nothing we can do about this other than to regard it as rub >of the green. Another view is that the 1S opening is "related" to both >clubs and diamonds, so that East has rights over both of those suits - >this may lead to inequity in that East could require South to lead the >minor that North would not have opened, thus improving his position >compared to what it would be had North opened his suit naturally. Well, my requirement for applying 26A is that you must be able to point at a suit about which something is said. In this 1S, you are not able to do so. Opener can have four clubs, but that is not necessary, although he must have four diamonds in that case. Same about the diamonds. It is not possible to name a suit in which opener now promises a certain holding. That means 26B. >If 1S showed a weak no trump, what do we want? Again, in equity I >suppose that we might not want a lead penalty at all, but the Laws >require us (in my view) to apply L26B. I have suggested that a 1NT >opening might be considered "related" to all suits; I do not suggest >that the relation is strong enough to give declarer rights over all >suits, but it is worth considering perhaps that the lead of a minor is >more likely to be successful than the lead of a major (all other >things being equal). That is the kind of thing we rather would not want in the Laws. You would need a TD to figure out which lead is more likely to be successful in such a case before he can apply the lead penalty. And thus the TD gives UI by the type of lead penalty he applies. Even worse, he might get it wrong... Better simply apply L26B. >I am beginning to wonder whether it might not be more practical to >dump a lot of this into the laws dealing with any other kind of UI. >TDs and ACs are able to make judgements about exactly what opening >leads may be suggested over others by withdrawn calls whatever they >mean, so it might be possible to write a simplified L26: > >When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a >different final call for that turn, then the offender's partner may >not choose from among logical alternative opening leads one that may >have been suggested over another by the information arising from the >withdrawn call. > >After all, that in my opinion is what we really want to happen! So you propose, in fact, to cancel L26, as the wordings above are already contained in L16. It is true that we want that to happen. It would give TDs lots of extra work, though; they must judge a deal after it has been played instead of applying a fairly simple (?) law. But it is certainly worth thinking about. Let me then give you the classic L26B-example of our TD-courses. West is dealer, but North opens 2D (showing weak two in either major). East does not accept. West then opens 3C, North 3H, East 3NT, end. Guess what South leads if given the chance... -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 01:43:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:43:04 +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 BAA24183 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:42:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-253.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.253]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA03843; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:42:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001a01bf4c8a$e52a0f80$fd84d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Inhibiting question? Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:43:19 -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 Perhaps I am the one who is dense. South asked about the alert at his earliest opportunity, and had a reasonable bridge reason to inquire. Was it not surprising that he was told it was a transfer to hearts when a spade was bid over it. That seems to be a rather surprising and interesting convention, in itself enough reason to blink a little. I would allow the lead. It is noteworthy that both heart and spade leads seem contraindicated by the AI of the bidding and explanation, and a club lead instead of a diamond does not appear to harm the defense. Even if there is use of UI there does not appear to be consequent damage. What did I miss? Craig -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 6:20 PM Subject: Re: Inhibiting question? > >-----Original Message----- >From: John S. Nichols >To: Anne Jones ; BLML > >Date: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 6:15 PM >Subject: Re: Inhibiting question? > > >>At 12:03 PM 12/21/99 , Anne Jones wrote: >>>One I got last night:- >>>N E S W >>> 1S >>>P 1NT P 2D* >>>P 2S ** P P >>>P >>>2D was alerted. North did not ask. At his next turn to call ** >>>S asked about the alerted 2D call and was told that it was >>>a transfer to hearts. He showed interest and surprise and >>>passed. >>>Contract = 2S by West. >>>North is on lead and leads a Diamond. >>>Declarer made 6 tricks. >>> >>>The whole deal >>> North >>> 4 >>> KJ6542 >>> 97 >>> J543 >>> >>>West East >>>KQ952 A8 >>>AQ73 1098 >>>843 J52 >>>Q K10962 >>> South >>> J10763 >>> void >>> AKQ106 >>> A87 >>> >>>You are called at the end of the play of the hand. >>> >>>How do you rule? >>> >>>Would it make any difference if I told you that >>> the board was played only played three times. >>>(3 table Howell) >>>Twice elsewhere, in 2S, and the result was 7 tricks >>>both on a diamond lead >>>At this table declarer admitted to taking the wrong >>>line at trick 10. >>>The players E/W Grand masters, N/S well above average. >>>South does a bit of TDing. >> >> >>Perhaps I am a bit dense here. Who called? What was the question to rule >on? > > >E/W called the TD and asked for a ruling on possible use of UI in North's >selection of a Diamond lead after South had drawn attention to the Diamond >bid >by West. > >Anne > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 01:49:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:49:59 +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 BAA24225 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:49:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from p3fs10a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.170.64] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 120n4f-00067Y-00; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:49:09 -0800 Message-ID: <001101bf4c8b$77adb0a0$40aa93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Composition of WBF Laws Committee. Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:42:23 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 02:09:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([12.78.221.66]) by mtiwmhc09.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19991222150901.CEOC10418@default>; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 15:09:01 +0000 Message-ID: <008501bf4c28$c0ab0720$c4da4e0c@default> From: "JOAN GERARD" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , "becky rogers" , Subject: Re: Composition of WBF Laws Committee. Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:00:44 -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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Grattan, Somehow I knew you would get some questions about the composition of the Laws Committee- As you probably know, the 1997 WBF Directory shows Jeff Polisner as a member of the Laws Committee - does not show Chip Martel as a VC and of course includes Bob Howes who is no longer with us. So, that is why you probably got some questions. You say you lost track of Becky Rogers. Well, her e-mail address is rags4@softcom.net so you canb reach her there. I know she is planning to be in Bermuda and might like to attend the meetings. Have a happy holiday and a great New Year. When are you arriving in Bermuda? Look forward to seeing you. Luv, Joan -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Cc: Grattan Endicott Date: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 9:53 . Subject: Composition of WBF Laws Committee. > >Grattan Endicott================================ >When the mice rule, cats beware! >:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > >I have now received two queries in quick >succession requesting information about >the composition of the Laws Committee >of the World Bridge Federation. These >are the names as notified to me (and as >confirmed by the WBF web site):- > > Zone >Chairman Ton Kooijman 1 >Vice Chairmen Ralph Cohen 2 > Chip Martel 2 >Secretary Grattan Endicott 1 > >Members Jaime-Ortiz-Patino > WBF President Emeritus > William Schoder > Chief Tournament Director > > Zone > Virgil Andersen 2 > Jens Auken 1 > Carlos Cabanne 3 > Cecil Cook 2 > Claude Dadoun 1 > David Davenport 1 > Joan Gerard 2 > Santanu Ghose 4 > Amalya Kearse 2 > Dan Morse 2 > Rebecca Rogers 2 > John Wignall 7 > >I hope this resolves any queries. I can say that I seem to >have lost touch with Becky Rogers. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 02:26:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 02:26:04 +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 CAA24513 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 02:25:54 +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 QAA02881 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:23:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3860ED30.1AB0A445@eduhi.at> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:24:33 +0100 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [de] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2E1@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. schrieb: > Can anybody tell me why partner > sohuld be required to lead a spade when a just spades showing bid OOT has > been withdrawn? Is there any relation with UI when requiring such a lead? > Maybe to protect NOS against some outrageous psyche? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 03:51:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 03:51:45 +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 DAA24837 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 03:51:36 +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 120oyv-0004rN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:51:21 +0000 Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:51:21 GMT Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.2s, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <38610189.181d.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 Ton asked why declarer could require, as well as forbid, the lead of a suit specified in a withdrawn call. I think that this probably dates from the time when laws were being constructed in order to circumvent those who would deliberately play unfairly. Nowadays, of course, no one does that! One could imagine a devious pair agreeing to play all bids that would later be withdrawn as transfers, so that a player who wanted a spade lead against what looked like being an enemy notrump contract would interpose a bid of *hearts* out of turn. If all that declarer could do was forbid a heart lead, he would have no real protection from such underhand devices, so he was given the ability to require a heart lead if that happened to suit his purposes. These days, of course, we rely on the activities of monitors, C and E committees, and other things (which do not stand a chance in Hades of working) to prevent this kind of thing. We do this because we believe (rightly) that people don't actually revoke on purpose any more. We also believe (foolishly) that we should therefore modify the laws of the game so as not to penalise too severely all those very nice people who break them entirely by accident. In doing so, we have fallen with a mighty crash between two stools. The fact of the matter is this: laws should be simple, or they should be equitable. Exactly insofar as they are the former, they will not be the latter, and vice versa. Simple laws (such as "spades outrank hearts") have no element of equity in them whatever. It is no coincidence that these are the only laws which everybody accepts and with which no one at all has any difficulty. Complicated laws, like 25 and 26 and 30 and anything in the 60s, attempt to "restore equity", and instead create an environment in which no one thrives but the lawyers. The lead penalty for an insufficient bid should be *either* "don't lead anything suggested by UI" (the equitable version) *or* "declarer can tell you what suit to lead" (the simple version). It should not be what it currently is - some God-awful hybrid about which we can all wrangle to our hearts' content while the game itself withers and dies. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 05:55:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 05:55:57 +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 FAA25271 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 05:55:45 +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 120qv6-0005ru-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:55:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:46:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <001101bf4c6b$d92426e0$d48a01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001101bf4c6b$d92426e0$d48a01d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >Perhaps the difficulty might be overcome if the first sentence of >L26A >> >were to read: >> > >> >If the withdrawn call conveyed information not previously available >> >from the legal auction about any suit, and... >> >> Fair comment. I think we should interpret it as though it does. > >Having read the comments about the Multi and the Muiderberg 2M >openings, and having thought about the Precision 2D opening and >related topics, I am not sure that even this will work. As I >understand what Ton Kooijman wrote, a 2S opening showing spades and a >minor is not considered related to spades in the sense of L26A, so >that L26B is invoked in cases where such a call is withdrawn. I am >surprised at this, since it is certainly not how I would have >interpreted the Laws (I do not know whether there is any guidance on >this point for English or British ACs and TDs). A withdrawn Woo 2 is treated under 26B, David. Routine in the UK :)) > >I suppose we might ask: what do we actually want to happen, and why? >Then we might ask: do the Laws in fact say that this happens? (This is >to stop DWS mounting one of his favourite hobby-horses, that our job >is to rule in accordance with what the Laws really say, not what we >think they ought to say.) Well, there are a number of cases (the bid >marked * is made out of turn and then withdrawn): > >N E S W >1S* 1NT P 3NT >AP > >If 1S is natural, we want declarer to have rights over the spade suit >(prohibit or require) and over no other suits. Do the Laws say that >this happens? I believe so (L26A2). > >If 1S showed clubs, we want declarer to have rights over the club suit >and over no other suits. Do the Laws say this? I believe so (L26A2). > >If 1S was a Fert and showed a pass, I am not sure what we want. In >equity, I would say that we did not want a lead penalty to apply, but >do the Laws say this? No, I think that they allow declarer to forbid >any suit but not require any suit (L26B). > >If 1S showed a hand that would open 1m in a natural system, what do we >want? In equity, we want to stop the opening leader guessing his >partner's minor and leading it. Do the Laws say this? I do not believe >so, but there is a distinct lack of clarity among the contributions to >this thread. Ton's view, as I understand it, is that declarer may >forbid anything but not require anything (L26B). Yep, since no denomination *is* specified then we use 26B - "Other withdrawn calls" >This is probably the >best we can do in terms of equity, since declarer is at liberty to >guess North's minor and tell South not to lead it. Declarer is not in >as good a position as he would be if North had opened his minor >naturally, but East wanted South to lead the suit anyway; there is >probably nothing we can do about this other than to regard it as rub >of the green. Another view is that the 1S opening is "related" to both >clubs and diamonds, so that East has rights over both of those suits - >this may lead to inequity in that East could require South to lead the >minor that North would not have opened, thus improving his position >compared to what it would be had North opened his suit naturally. > >If 1S showed a weak no trump, what do we want? Again, in equity I >suppose that we might not want a lead penalty at all, but the Laws >require us (in my view) to apply L26B. Same again. 26B. >I have suggested that a 1NT >opening might be considered "related" to all suits; I do not suggest >that the relation is strong enough to give declarer rights over all >suits, but it is worth considering perhaps that the lead of a minor is >more likely to be successful than the lead of a major (all other >things being equal). > >I am beginning to wonder whether it might not be more practical to >dump a lot of this into the laws dealing with any other kind of UI. >TDs and ACs are able to make judgements about exactly what opening >leads may be suggested over others by withdrawn calls whatever they >mean, so it might be possible to write a simplified L26: > >When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a >different final call for that turn, then the offender's partner may >not choose from among logical alternative opening leads one that may >have been suggested over another by the information arising from the >withdrawn call. > Don't like it David. If I expose a card, declarer gets the right to insist on or prohibit that suit. If I "show" (for want of a better word) a suit then I get the same rights. Seems about the same to me. The problem with your approach, admirable that it may be, is that it requires competent TD's. UI is tough enough to beat the best of us already, and you want to add to the pond. No No No. 26 is more or less ok, once it's been tidied up. cheers john >After all, that in my opinion is what we really want to happen! > >David Burn >London, England > -- 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 Dec 23 05:55:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 05:55:51 +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 FAA25270 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 05:55:42 +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 120qv6-0006oQ-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:55:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:51:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <199912221230.MAA27750@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199912221230.MAA27750@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes snip > >I think players and TD were happier with more mechanical penalties >in situations which were not also subject to UI considerations. A mechanical penalty is a machine. You press the button and it shoots you. No problem, no argument, happy customers. Every time the TD has to make a value judgement, problems, arguements, unhappy customers. I like happy customers. Customers like being happy. I'd prefer mechanical penalties. (cf DB: Revoke=Firing Squad, LOOT=Bastinado, etc) -- 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 Dec 23 06:01:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 06:01:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25310 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 06:00:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 120r06-0004Sl-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 19:00:46 +0000 Message-ID: <3c+M7zArrRY4Ewuu@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:39:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <000f01bf4c78$80f09460$509d01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000f01bf4c78$80f09460$509d01d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I do not care whether what people have argued on this list recently >is >> right or wrong. But anyone who thinks it has the slightest >connection >> with running, organising, ruling or regulating the game of bridge is >> seriously out of their tree. > >And much else in the same gangrenous vein. We may hope, I suppose, >that our distinguished and valued contributor arrives at the view that >just because he does not want to talk about something, this should not >necessarily mean that the rest of us don't. After all, he still has >over a year of the current millennium in which to come round to this >standpoint. > >David Burn >London, England falling out of trees and gangrene have no place on this list. Views on whether a bid is a convention or not do have a place on this list Some of the views about this are bizarre in my opinion, but I give them a moment just in case I've missed something. Shall we proceed as gentlemen? or as vulgar abusers? 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 Dec 23 07:42:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 07:42:58 +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 HAA25618 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 07:42:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29465 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:42:38 +0100 Received: from ip81.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.81), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda29463; Wed Dec 22 21:42:37 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 21:42:37 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199912221230.MAA27750@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199912221230.MAA27750@tempest.npl.co.uk> 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 HAA25619 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Warning: this is nothing but a "me too"-post. I find the subject so important that I am going to send it anyway: On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:30:10 GMT, Robin Barker wrote: > [snip] >I think players and TD were happier with more mechanical penalties >in situations which were not also subject to UI considerations. > >The alternative is to remove the mechanical penalties, and leave >UI and/or consequent damage to deal with many of these situations: >withdrawn calls, penalty cards, established revokes. > > We seem to share a hobby-horse, Robin. On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:51:21 GMT, dburn@btinternet.com wrote: >The fact of the matter is this: laws should be simple, or they should be equitable. Exactly. Mechanical penalties (supplemented by laws like L64C if necessary) or UI please - not both at once. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 10:46:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:46:47 +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 KAA26346 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:46:38 +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 SAA04831 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:46:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA11185 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:46:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:46:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912222346.SAA11185@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Very long. Ton: if you don't read the whole thing, please do check my response to your message at the bottom.] > From: "David Burn" [much snipped throughout] > It seems to me that the question is: what degree of relatedness is > implied by the wording of L26? Yes. > I suppose we might ask: what do we actually want to happen, and why? > Then we might ask: do the Laws in fact say that this happens? ... > N E S W > 1S/- 1NT P 3NT (1S was out of turn and withdrawn) > AP > > If 1S is natural, we want declarer to have rights over the spade suit > (prohibit or require) and over no other suits. Do the Laws say that > this happens? I believe so (L26A2). Yes. > If 1S showed clubs, we want declarer to have rights over the club suit > and over no other suits. Do the Laws say this? I believe so (L26A2). Yes. > If 1S was a Fert and showed a pass, I am not sure what we want. In > equity, I would say that we did not want a lead penalty to apply, but > do the Laws say this? No, I think that they allow declarer to forbid > any suit but not require any suit (L26B). I agree that the laws say L26B and don't think that's bad. > If 1S showed a hand that would open 1m in a natural system, what do we > want? In equity, we want to stop the opening leader guessing his > partner's minor and leading it. My own view is that the current laws call for L26B, but one could argue L26A2 for both minors. I don't have a strong opinion on which is more desirable, but what I really want is a clear way to decide. > If 1S showed a weak no trump, what do we want? Again, in equity I > suppose that we might not want a lead penalty at all, but the Laws > require us (in my view) to apply L26B. I agree with L26B and think it's fine. > I am beginning to wonder whether it might not be more practical to > dump a lot of this into the laws dealing with any other kind of UI. The Bridge World agrees with this. See their 1999 October (?) editorial. FWIW, I strongly disagree and sent a brief email to TBW to let them know. I agree with Martin Sinot that simply deleting L26 would have this effect (via L16C2), but there may be some subtlety we are overlooking. > ...we have fallen with a mighty crash between two stools. > > The fact of the matter is this: laws should be simple, or they should > be equitable. Add another "me too!" > The lead penalty for an insufficient bid should be *either* "don't lead > anything suggested by UI" (the equitable version) *or* "declarer can > tell you what suit to lead" (the simple version). It should not be what > it currently is - some God-awful hybrid about which we can all wrangle > to our hearts' content while the game itself withers and dies. I like it! At the risk of falling between the two stools, I might make it: 1) If the withdrawn call incontrovertibly showed length or strength in one and only one suit, which was specified, then L26A, 1 or 2 according to the later auction. 2) If it did not show length or strength in any suit, L26B 3) Otherwise, declarer may choose the suit to be led (or perhaps better, may forbid any combination of 1, 2, or 3 suits, which gives less chance of finding a defender unable to lead an allowed suit). The language can no doubt be cleaned up, but the intent is that 1) applies to natural bids showing one suit (and also to control-showing cue bids), 2) applies to notrump bids, ferts, value doubles, and other things that show values but don't suggest a particular suit, and 3) applies to two-suited calls, unspecified or ambiguous suits, and other weirdness. It seems fair to me that if you bid your suit later, partner shouldn't be barred from leading it, but I'm not sure how to reconcile that with 2) and 3). In the end, I could live with just 3) or anything else simple. Another note for 2007? > From: "Martin Sinot" > Let me then give you the classic L26B-example of our TD-courses. > West is dealer, but North opens 2D (showing weak two in either > major). East does not accept. West then opens 3C, North 3H, East > 3NT, end. Guess what South leads if given the chance... Of course requiring a heart lead has the same effect as forbidding a spade lead and may even be more beneficial to declarer's side. Unless South is void in hearts...! I think I like David Burn's suggestion (or my 3) for this. > From: "Kooijman, A." > 2spades showing spades and a minor is not related to specified suits or a > specified suit in my opinion. It is related to spades and an unspecified > suit. That brings me in 26B. I agree with the second sentence, but I don't see how you can get from it to your first sentence. Therefore I get to 26A. I agree that B seems closer to equity. I think it would be useful to ask for an interpretation, if your agenda is not already too crowded. The general question is what happens when a call showing both known and unknown suits is withdrawn. A subsidiary question is whether the later auction can make a suit specified, as the ACBL says, or whether the test should be applied at the instant the call is withdrawn. And a final question is the one that started this thread: what if a call is vaguely related to a specified suit but does not show length or strength there? Do we need to ask about withdrawn calls that show shortness? I would say L26A applies to the short suit, 'related' not being equivalent to 'showing strength'. > This approach also avoids the combination of > applying 26A and B at the same time, which is problematic since they seem to > contradict each other, with B just forbidding and A also demanding. I don't think you can apply both A and B; it has to be one or the other. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 10:53:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:53:06 +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 KAA26381 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:52:59 +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 SAA04948 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:52:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA11196 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:52:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:52:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912222352.SAA11196@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Furthermore, is there anyone out there who is interested in any slight > way in regulating the game of Bridge? > > Or are we just going to have jolly semantic arguments that mean > nothing but keep us happy for hours? The practical questions discussed in this thread are: 1. Do we apply L27B1 or B2 when completion of a transfer is withdrawn? 2. Do we apply L26A or B when completion of a transfer is withdrawn? 3. Do we apply L26A or B when there are both specified and unspecified suits? I don't think the answers are 100% clear to any of these, and while the situations surely aren't common, they seem to have some practical importance. Anne's original question (2) was asked as if coming from actual play. From there, we diverged to consider 1 and 3. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 11:14:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:14:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26434 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:14:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 120vtW-000M43-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:14:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:11:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <00d801bf4be1$fdfffc80$a6d73ad0@hdavis> <386041E0.B2361026@mindspring.com> <000f01bf4c78$80f09460$509d01d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000f01bf4c78$80f09460$509d01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I do not care whether what people have argued on this list recently >is >> right or wrong. But anyone who thinks it has the slightest >connection >> with running, organising, ruling or regulating the game of bridge is >> seriously out of their tree. > >And much else in the same gangrenous vein. We may hope, I suppose, >that our distinguished and valued contributor arrives at the view that >just because he does not want to talk about something, this should not >necessarily mean that the rest of us don't. After all, he still has >over a year of the current millennium in which to come round to this >standpoint. Actually, I do not usually include your posts. You seem to have occasional semantic arguments - but they are clearly semantic. Nothing you have written makes me think that you believe a Precision 1D opening showing 0+ is not a convention. Now go and prove me wrong. Perhaps I should say that if anyone were to start a thread marked "The English meaning of convention" and have a long meaningful discussion over the semantics I should not care because it does not do much damage. But we have a lot of lurkers trying to learn something and when people are arguing in a learned way that no non-forcing bid is ever a convention then they are doing a disservice to the lurkers who will be getting confused. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 23 11:14:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:14:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26435 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:14:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 120vtX-000M44-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:14:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:16:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <001701bf4ba2$53285300$e68d01d5@davidburn> <001101bf4c6b$d92426e0$d48a01d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001101bf4c6b$d92426e0$d48a01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >Perhaps the difficulty might be overcome if the first sentence of >L26A >> >were to read: >> > >> >If the withdrawn call conveyed information not previously available >> >from the legal auction about any suit, and... >> >> Fair comment. I think we should interpret it as though it does. > >Having read the comments about the Multi and the Muiderberg 2M >openings, and having thought about the Precision 2D opening and >related topics, I am not sure that even this will work. As I >understand what Ton Kooijman wrote, a 2S opening showing spades and a >minor is not considered related to spades in the sense of L26A, so >that L26B is invoked in cases where such a call is withdrawn. I am >surprised at this, since it is certainly not how I would have >interpreted the Laws (I do not know whether there is any guidance on >this point for English or British ACs and TDs). TDs were told to follow this interpretation at the Panel weekend two years ago. ACs probably do not get told in a similar way but they are expected to rely on the TD for the Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 12:48:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 12:48:02 +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 MAA26681 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 12:47:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.155.61] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 120xLw-00048h-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:47:41 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf4ce7$ce85e120$3d9b01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199912222346.SAA11185@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:48:26 -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 wrote: > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > 2spades showing spades and a minor is not related to specified suits or a > > specified suit in my opinion. It is related to spades and an unspecified > > suit. That brings me in 26B. > > I agree with the second sentence, but I don't see how you can get from > it to your first sentence. Therefore I get to 26A. I agree that B > seems closer to equity. I think I see now where the difficulty may be. As I see it, Ton's interpretation (which, so I have been told, is the one that British TDs follow) is: If the withdrawn call did nothing but relate to a specified suit or suits... ...then follow 26A, but... ...if the withdrawn call contained any non-suit-specific information, then... ...follow L26B. Steve's interpretation is: If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits, then whatever else it meant... ...follow L26A, but... ...if it contained nothing but non-suit-specific information, then... ...follow L26B. I confess that I believe the wording of the Laws to be consistent only with the second interpretation above. However, following L26B appears to me to be more consonant with "what we want to happen", which is that declarer can forbid the partner of a player who has shown a suit when he shouldn't have done from leading it, but declarer cannot do more than that. Ton asked in a previous post why it was that declarer was given the option of compelling the lead of a suit shown by RHO as well as the option of forbidding it. I have answered this question as best I can, but the following position may arise which seems to me paradoxical: (a) East has Ax xx x AKQJ10xxx. North opens 2S (weak) out of turn. East bids 3NT and requires a spade lead from South. So far, so good (except that Ton might say "so bad"). (b) East has Ax xx x AKQJ10xxx. North opens a Muiderberg 2S (weak, spades and an unknown minor) out of turn. East bids 3NT and forbids a diamond lead from South, who cashes five heart tricks to defeat the contract. Why do the Laws place East in a stronger position in case (a) than in case (b)? Should they do so? In my opinion, they certainly should not. I suppose this means that I had better not go and play bridge in the Netherlands; the trouble is that it means I cannot play in Britain either (a view that any of my partners will happily endorse). David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 13:04:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:04:14 +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 NAA26725 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:04:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.155.61] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 120xbc-0006gS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 02:03:53 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01bf4cea$11c14400$3d9b01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00d801bf4be1$fdfffc80$a6d73ad0@hdavis> <386041E0.B2361026@mindspring.com><000f01bf4c78$80f09460$509d01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 02:04:38 -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 Stevenson wrote: > Actually, I do not usually include your posts. You seem to have > occasional semantic arguments - but they are clearly semantic. Nothing > you have written makes me think that you believe a Precision 1D opening > showing 0+ is not a convention. Now go and prove me wrong. Include my posts in what? If they are not included in your attack on semantic discussions, then I suppose I should be thankful. However, in order to answer your second point, I am afraid that I am going to have to resort to semantics. I believe that a 1D opening showing 0+ cards is a convention, because I believe that: (a) it does not show high-card strength or length in diamonds; and that (b) it conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in diamonds both of which tests I believe a call is required to pass before it is defined as a convention in the Laws. To elaborate on (b), I believe that "willingness to play in the denomination named" implies a substantial degree of volition on the part of the person making the call. Whereas I accept that a player who opens a void may be willing to play in that denomination if partner can think of nothing better to do, I do not believe that this proviso is encompassed in the words of the definition. For a bid not to be a convention, I believe that the player making it must be of the opinion that, in his best judgement at the time of making the bid and regardless of any future action that his partner may take, the denomination of his bid will constitute a satisfactory resting place for his partnership. Of course a non-forcing bid may be a convention. Whoever has suggested otherwise? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 13:18:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:18:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26803 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:18:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 120xp8-000I8I-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 02:17:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:53:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <199912222352.SAA11196@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199912222352.SAA11196@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 >> Furthermore, is there anyone out there who is interested in any slight >> way in regulating the game of Bridge? >> >> Or are we just going to have jolly semantic arguments that mean >> nothing but keep us happy for hours? > >The practical questions discussed in this thread are: >1. Do we apply L27B1 or B2 when completion of a transfer is withdrawn? >2. Do we apply L26A or B when completion of a transfer is withdrawn? >3. Do we apply L26A or B when there are both specified and > unspecified suits? > >I don't think the answers are 100% clear to any of these, and while the >situations surely aren't common, they seem to have some practical >importance. Anne's original question (2) was asked as if coming from >actual play. From there, we diverged to consider 1 and 3. Did you actually read what I wrote, Steve? Or just snip most of it, and reply to the rest taken out of context? There is a problem with L26A and L26B. I have no problem with that, and as is obvious from my article, my article has *nothing* whatever* to do with that problem. I just think that arguments to prove that every non-forcing bid is a convention are silly and denigrate the game of Bridge. That is what I said: that is what I meant: taking my comments out of context to presume I was referring to something else is dirty pool. And, yes, I do know that the argument to prove a non-forcing bid is not a convention are irrelevant to L26, thank-you: but that does not alter the fact that they came into this thread. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 13:18:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:18:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26802 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:18:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 120xp8-000I8H-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 02:17:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:43:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <00d801bf4be1$fdfffc80$a6d73ad0@hdavis> <386041E0.B2361026@mindspring.com> <000f01bf4c78$80f09460$509d01d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >David Burn wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> I do not care whether what people have argued on this list recently >>is >>> right or wrong. But anyone who thinks it has the slightest >>connection >>> with running, organising, ruling or regulating the game of bridge is >>> seriously out of their tree. >> >>And much else in the same gangrenous vein. We may hope, I suppose, >>that our distinguished and valued contributor arrives at the view that >>just because he does not want to talk about something, this should not >>necessarily mean that the rest of us don't. After all, he still has >>over a year of the current millennium in which to come round to this >>standpoint. > > Actually, I do not usually include your posts. You seem to have >occasional semantic arguments - but they are clearly semantic. Nothing >you have written makes me think that you believe a Precision 1D opening >showing 0+ is not a convention. Now go and prove me wrong. > > Perhaps I should say that if anyone were to start a thread marked "The >English meaning of convention" and have a long meaningful discussion >over the semantics I should not care because it does not do much damage. >But we have a lot of lurkers trying to learn something and when people >are arguing in a learned way that no non-forcing bid is ever a >convention then they are doing a disservice to the lurkers who will be >getting confused. Worse has followed! I have had a couple of emails worrying that *I* am advocating that no non-forcing bid is ever a convention. Sorry: as you all know I tend to use sarcasm as a means of posting at times [I call it dramatic irony!]. There are arguments in this thread that basically prove that no non-forcing bid can be a convention [eg a 2D opening showing a weak two in hearts or spades is not a convention]. I was being sarcastic at this opinion. Semantically, it may be provable, but for the good of the game, *please* ignore it. Treat a convention as what you believe to be a convention, and do not worry about it! I think this goes to show the danger of the ludicrous assertion that no non-forcing bid is ever a convention: people are now believing it, so getting confused. We are trying to run a game here, and we shall not do so with patently absurd interpretations. Interesting semantic arguments aside from attempts to run the game are a different matter. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 23 13:24:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:24:55 +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 NAA26847 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:24:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.155.61] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 120xvj-0005pq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 02:24:39 +0000 Message-ID: <003101bf4cec$f873e180$3d9b01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <199912222346.SAA11185@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 02:25:24 -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: > > I am beginning to wonder whether it might not be more practical to > > dump a lot of this into the laws dealing with any other kind of UI. > > The Bridge World agrees with this. See their 1999 October (?) > editorial. FWIW, I strongly disagree and sent a brief email to TBW to > let them know. What the Bridge World is trying to do is sound out public opinion on various questions, but they are all in principle related to the meta-question of whether we want a system of laws based on fixed penalties (which will be simple and consistent, but which will lead to random inequities) or whether we want a system based on equity being done in each individual case within a framework of laws that are consonant with some ideal of "sportsmanship" or "fair play". As I have said, I would be entirely happy with either - though my personal preference, as any will deduce who have read my view that the revoke penalty should be summary execution - is for a fixed-penalty system. The decisive advantage of this over an equity-based system, in my view, is that it would not be susceptible to corruption. Moreover, I believe the essence of sportsmanship to lie not in acts of sporadic altruism but in acceptance, without demur, of a maxim that I learned when I first picked up a cricket bat: "The umpire's decision is final". While I would be happy with either a fixed-penalty or an equity-based system of laws, I am not happy with both - or neither - which is in my view what we have at the moment. My suggestion that L26 be subsumed in L16 had nothing to do with my personal preference, which is that people who show suits when it's not their turn ought to be boiled in oil. It was merely a way to move what is perceived by many as an arbitrary set of fixed penalties into the domain of equity-based rulings. I perceive that the trend may be towards such rulings, as the Bridge World suggests; in that case, let us move everything as far as we may in that direction, and let us do it as soon as possible. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 15:10:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA27173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 15:10:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27168 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 15:10:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 120zZa-0004gX-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 04:09:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 04:08:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <000d01bf4ce7$ce85e120$3d9b01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000d01bf4ce7$ce85e120$3d9b01d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes >Steve wrote: > >> > From: "Kooijman, A." >> > 2spades showing spades and a minor is not related to specified >suits or a >> > specified suit in my opinion. It is related to spades and an >unspecified >> > suit. That brings me in 26B. >> >> I agree with the second sentence, but I don't see how you can get >from >> it to your first sentence. Therefore I get to 26A. I agree that B >> seems closer to equity. > >I think I see now where the difficulty may be. As I see it, Ton's >interpretation (which, so I have been told, is the one that British >TDs follow) is: > >If the withdrawn call did nothing but relate to a specified suit or >suits... > >...then follow 26A, but... > >...if the withdrawn call contained any non-suit-specific information, >then... > >...follow L26B. > >Steve's interpretation is: > >If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits, then >whatever else it meant... > >...follow L26A, but... > >...if it contained nothing but non-suit-specific information, then... > >...follow L26B. > >I confess that I believe the wording of the Laws to be consistent only >with the second interpretation above. On this we differ. To my mind 26A2 only applies if the call is specific to one-and-only-one suit. Hence Woo 2's do not qualify, and neither do transfer completions. For these we use 26B >However, following L26B appears >to me to be more consonant with "what we want to happen", which is >that declarer can forbid the partner of a player who has shown a suit >when he shouldn't have done from leading it, but declarer cannot do >more than that. Ton asked in a previous post why it was that declarer >was given the option of compelling the lead of a suit shown by RHO as >well as the option of forbidding it. I have answered this question as >best I can, but the following position may arise which seems to me >paradoxical: > >(a) East has Ax xx x AKQJ10xxx. North opens 2S (weak) out of turn. >East bids 3NT and requires a spade lead from South. So far, so good >(except that Ton might say "so bad"). > >(b) East has Ax xx x AKQJ10xxx. North opens a Muiderberg 2S (weak, >spades and an unknown minor) out of turn. East bids 3NT and forbids a >diamond lead from South, who cashes five heart tricks to defeat the >contract. > >Why do the Laws place East in a stronger position in case (a) than in >case (b)? Should they do so? In my opinion, they certainly should not. Again I must disagree. The information content of the two different meanings of the call is entirely different. There seems no reason to suppose that one should apply the same penalty in both cases. >I suppose this means that I had better not go and play bridge in the >Netherlands; the trouble is that it means I cannot play in Britain >either (a view that any of my partners will happily endorse). You won on Monday didn't you? cheers john > >David Burn >London, England > > > -- 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 Dec 23 15:24:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA27205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 15:24:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27200 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 15:24:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 120znF-00052D-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 04:24:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 04:22:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <003101bf4cec$f873e180$3d9b01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <003101bf4cec$f873e180$3d9b01d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes snip > though my personal >preference, as any will deduce who have read my view that the revoke >penalty should be summary execution - is for a fixed-penalty system. >The decisive advantage of this over an equity-based system, in my >view, is that it would not be susceptible to corruption. This to my mind is an overpowering case. The more you ask the TD to use his judgement, the more you move bridge into the courtroom and off the table. This is a *bad thing*. Unhappy Customers. >Moreover, I >believe the essence of sportsmanship to lie not in acts of sporadic >altruism but in acceptance, without demur, of a maxim that I learned >when I first picked up a cricket bat: "The umpire's decision is >final". To have an appeal process over and above a decision of first instance is no bad thing. It causes the TD to make better efforts to get it right first time, and acts as a judgement of his competence. (There are those on record who consider me to be *totally incompetent*. That's fine, they can take my rulings to appeal.) > >While I would be happy with either a fixed-penalty or an equity-based >system of laws, I am not happy with both - or neither - which is in my >view what we have at the moment. My suggestion that L26 be subsumed in >L16 had nothing to do with my personal preference, which is that >people who show suits when it's not their turn ought to be boiled in >oil. I think bastinado is a sensible alternative. >It was merely a way to move what is perceived by many as an >arbitrary set of fixed penalties into the domain of equity-based >rulings. I perceive that the trend may be towards such rulings, as the >Bridge World suggests; in that case, let us move everything as far as >we may in that direction, and let us do it as soon as possible. > If that is what is deemed to be a *good thing* then let's do it. I for one would far prefer to have one style or another, rather than an unhappy mixture. Far deeper and more careful consideration would be required to go the equity route than would be needed for the rate-card approach. Far better TDs would be required in the former case, and positively serafim-conformant ACs. Consistency would still be a long- range and unapproachable goal, We don't have such TDs, nor such ACs. I doubt we ever will. Thanks David for making me think this one through, from the ground up. chs john >David Burn >London, England > > -- 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 Dec 23 19:02:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 19:02:55 +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 TAA27541 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 19:02:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.65] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 1213Cn-000Jc5-00; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 08:02:37 +0000 Message-ID: <003c01bf4d1c$25ea5340$415408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 08:02:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 4:22 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > In article <003101bf4cec$f873e180$3d9b01d5@davidburn>, David Burn > writes > > snip > > > though my personal > >preference, as any will deduce who have read my view that the revoke > >penalty should be summary execution - is for a fixed-penalty system. > >The decisive advantage of this over an equity-based system, in my > >view, is that it would not be susceptible to corruption. > -------------------- \x/ ----------------------- > > If that is what is deemed to be a *good thing* then let's do it. I for > one would far prefer to have one style or another, rather than an > unhappy mixture. Far deeper and more careful consideration would be > required to go the equity route than would be needed for the rate-card > approach. Far better TDs would be required in the former case, and > positively serafim-conformant ACs. Consistency would still be a long- > range and unapproachable goal, We don't have such TDs, nor such ACs. > I doubt we ever will. > +=+ It is arguable that whilst 'mechanical' actions in breach of the laws are susceptible to mechanical penalties, the Director requires to use bridge judgement and endeavour to restore equity where the breach of the law is itself based on the player's use of bridge judgement (largely in UI situations). The ACBL approach to the latter kind of situation might be said to employ bridge judgement in establishing whether there is a violation and then, via 12C2, seeking to apply a penalty that is as nearly mechanical as possible. Such an approach does throw into question the statement that "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage". I have developed in a bridge culture where score adjustment is not intended to penalize a fault but to restore equity as nearly as possible. Where it came to be seen that in a significant number of cases 12C2 substitutes one inequity for another, a means (12C3) was devised to allow of more balanced adjustments such as the European culture was already making in some cases without a clear mandate from the laws to do so.It is my belief that where a major international body is acting outside of the laws it is not desirable for matters to remain in that condition; if the body is seen to be justified in what it is doing (or is unwilling to change its approach) the law should be moved to encompass the action and otherwise the body should return to the fold. It is mostly for these situations that I believe it is no longer common sense to wait for ten years to change laws, but there are powerful voices raised against any move to respond more quickly to such a problem; indeed where Kaplan was willing to bend by inserting a footnote in the laws there is currently even a distaste for footnotes giving options. (It may be recalled that 12C3 arrived as a footnote in words devised by Dennis Howard, although it appears its arrival was not reported to the ACBL for a long time afterwards - possibly because Kaplan had no relish for tackling the mid-Atlantic cultural divide, or more likely because he did not want the ACBL to adopt it. I do not think he ever came to terms with the fact that there are far more bridge players over here than within the ACBL.). As for Law 26 I am wondering about something like this: "When an offending player's call is withdrawn and he chooses a different final call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender the declarer at the offender's partner's first turn to lead may require the offender's partner to lead a suit specified by the withdrawn call or may prohibit the offender's partner from leading any one suit, such prohibition to continue for as long as the offender's partner retains the lead. (Declarer selects his option when offender's partner first has the lead. A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be deemed a different call.)" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 20:56:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 20:56:44 +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 UAA27733 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 20:56:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.139.221] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 1214yx-00056Y-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:56:27 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf4d2c$1572ad40$dd8b01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:57:10 -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 John Probst wrote: > >(a) East has Ax xx x AKQJ10xxx. North opens 2S (weak) out of turn. > >East bids 3NT and requires a spade lead from South. So far, so good > >(except that Ton might say "so bad"). > > > >(b) East has Ax xx x AKQJ10xxx. North opens a Muiderberg 2S (weak, > >spades and an unknown minor) out of turn. East bids 3NT and forbids a > >diamond lead from South, who cashes five heart tricks to defeat the > >contract. > > > >Why do the Laws place East in a stronger position in case (a) than in > >case (b)? Should they do so? In my opinion, they certainly should not. > > Again I must disagree. The information content of the two different > meanings of the call is entirely different. There seems no reason to > suppose that one should apply the same penalty in both cases. Well, (a) means that North has a hand of about 5-9 hcp with 5+ (or, as it might be in disciplined partnerships, 6+) spades. (b) means that North has a hand of about 5-9 hcp with 5+ spades, except that he happens not to be 5332. If these are "entirely" different, then not only must I give up bridge in the Netherlands, I must give up using the word "entirely", for it clearly means nothing like what I have believed all my life that it means. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 23 21:02:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 21:02:08 +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 VAA27776 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 21:01:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.139.221] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 121542-0006nb-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:01:43 +0000 Message-ID: <002501bf4d2c$d14dcd60$dd8b01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:02:25 -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 John Probst wrote: > On this we differ. To my mind 26A2 only applies if the call is specific > to one-and-only-one suit. Hence Woo 2's do not qualify, and neither do > transfer completions. For these we use 26B This appears to me at variance with these words, which I have tried unavailingly to construe as John intends: If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits, and... David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 01:30:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 01:30:30 +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 BAA28444 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 01:30:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtk44.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.208.132]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA28410; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:30:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19991223144053.006fcf50@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 06:40:53 -0800 To: "David Burn" From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:57 AM 12/23/99 -0000, you wrote: > >> Again I must disagree. The information content of the two different >> meanings of the call is entirely different. There seems no reason to >> suppose that one should apply the same penalty in both cases. > >Well, (a) means that North has a hand of about 5-9 hcp with 5+ (or, as >it might be in disciplined partnerships, 6+) spades. (b) means that >North has a hand of about 5-9 hcp with 5+ spades, except that he >happens not to be 5332. If these are "entirely" different, then not >only must I give up bridge in the Netherlands, I must give up using >the word "entirely", for it clearly means nothing like what I have >believed all my life that it means. > >David Burn >London, England in the acbl, we receive official propoganda according to which a suit bid is conventional if it provides distributional information beyond the suit named. hence, a 2h overcall of a 1nt opening bid that shows hearts and a minor is deemed to be conventional. in contrast, a weak2 is deemed a natural call because it provides distributional information that is limited to the suit named. by that standard a weak 2s opening bid is natural, while a muildenberg 2s opening bid showing spades and an unknown minor is conventional, and in the acbl that would be enough to name these two bids 'entirely different' from a legal point of view. at least, that's how it's been explained to me. henry sun california, usa > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 01:46:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 01:46:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from hopper.isi.com (hopper.isi.com [192.73.222.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28524 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 01:46:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from karma.isi.com (pixsv176.isi.com [192.73.222.126]) by hopper.isi.com (8.8.4/8.6.10) with ESMTP id GAA27927; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 06:45:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwilleypc (nash-dhcp-2 [128.224.193.31]) by karma.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id GAA01449; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 06:41:17 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Henry Sun" Cc: Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 09:46:36 -0800 Message-ID: <003801bf4d6d$a8be96e0$1fc1e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19991223144053.006fcf50@mindspring.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >in the acbl, we receive official propoganda according to which a >suit bid is conventional if it provides distributional information >beyond the suit named. hence, a 2h overcall of a 1nt opening bid >that shows hearts and a minor is deemed to be conventional. >in contrast, a weak2 is deemed a natural call because it provides >distributional information that is limited to the suit named. >by that standard a weak 2s opening bid is natural, while a >muildenberg 2s opening bid showing spades and an unknown minor is >conventional, >and in the acbl that would be enough to name these two bids >'entirely different' from a legal point of view. It is worth noting that the ACBL also considers it is legal to have the define a weak 2S opening as An unbalanced hand with 5 spades and less 4 Hearts (5332 being considered a balanced hand) How this differs from an agreement that a 2S opening promises 4+ cards in a minor is left as an exercise to the reader. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOGJf+yGkJ7YU62vZEQJh0ACbBMSg2fVRuB77IE8fuBdrYg4iX9QAnAvs qgAh2b1lu8kKkxgwxboM3NH/ =dQFn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 02:26:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 02:26:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA28840 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 02:25:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 121A7b-000DmK-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 15:25:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 15:24:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <003c01bf4d1c$25ea5340$415408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <003c01bf4d1c$25ea5340$415408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >"The great enemy of the truth is often not the lie..... > ....... but the myth" (J.F.K.) >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: >Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 4:22 AM >Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > >> In article <003101bf4cec$f873e180$3d9b01d5@davidburn>, David Burn >> writes >> >> snip >> >> > though my personal >> >preference, as any will deduce who have read my view that the revoke >> >penalty should be summary execution - is for a fixed-penalty system. >> >The decisive advantage of this over an equity-based system, in my >> >view, is that it would not be susceptible to corruption. >> >-------------------- \x/ ----------------------- >> >> If that is what is deemed to be a *good thing* then let's do it. I for >> one would far prefer to have one style or another, rather than an >> unhappy mixture. Far deeper and more careful consideration would be >> required to go the equity route than would be needed for the rate-card >> approach. Far better TDs would be required in the former case, and >> positively serafim-conformant ACs. Consistency would still be a long- >> range and unapproachable goal, We don't have such TDs, nor such ACs. >> I doubt we ever will. >> >+=+ It is arguable that whilst 'mechanical' actions in breach >of the laws are susceptible to mechanical penalties, the >Director requires to use bridge judgement and endeavour >to restore equity where the breach of the law is itself based >on the player's use of bridge judgement (largely in UI >situations). The ACBL approach to the latter kind of >situation might be said to employ bridge judgement in >establishing whether there is a violation and then, via >12C2, seeking to apply a penalty that is as nearly >mechanical as possible. > Such an approach does throw into question >the statement that "The Laws are primarily designed not >as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress >for damage". I have developed in a bridge culture where >score adjustment is not intended to penalize a fault but >to restore equity as nearly as possible. Where it came to >be seen that in a significant number of cases 12C2 >substitutes one inequity for another, a means (12C3) >was devised to allow of more balanced adjustments >such as the European culture was already making in >some cases without a clear mandate from the laws >to do so.It is my belief that where a major international >body is acting outside of the laws it is not desirable for >matters to remain in that condition; if the body is >seen to be justified in what it is doing (or is unwilling to >change its approach) the law should be moved to >encompass the action and otherwise the body should >return to the fold. It is mostly for these situations that >I believe it is no longer common sense to wait for ten >years to change laws, but there are powerful voices >raised against any move to respond more quickly to >such a problem; indeed where Kaplan was willing to >bend by inserting a footnote in the laws there is >currently even a distaste for footnotes giving options. >(It may be recalled that 12C3 arrived as a footnote >in words devised by Dennis Howard, although it >appears its arrival was not reported to the ACBL for >a long time afterwards - possibly because Kaplan >had no relish for tackling the mid-Atlantic cultural >divide, or more likely because he did not want the >ACBL to adopt it. I do not think he ever came to >terms with the fact that there are far more bridge >players over here than within the ACBL.). > As for Law 26 I am wondering about something >like this: "When an offending player's call is withdrawn >and he chooses a different final call for that turn, then >if he becomes a defender the declarer at the offender's >partner's first turn to lead may require the offender's >partner to lead a any would be better here as it caters for spades in a withdrawn Woo 2S, C+D in a withdrawn 1N overcall of 1H > suit specified by the withdrawn call >or may prohibit the offender's partner from leading >any one suit, such prohibition to continue for as long >as the offender's partner retains the lead. (Declarer >selects his option when offender's partner first has >the lead. A call repeated with a much different >meaning shall be deemed a different call.)" > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ subject to this I find the wording clear and workable. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 02:26:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 02:26:04 +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 CAA28839 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 02:25:55 +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 121A7b-000KH5-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 15:25:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 15:19:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <002501bf4d2c$d14dcd60$dd8b01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <002501bf4d2c$d14dcd60$dd8b01d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes >John Probst wrote: > >> On this we differ. To my mind 26A2 only applies if the call is >specific >> to one-and-only-one suit. Hence Woo 2's do not qualify, and neither >do >> transfer completions. For these we use 26B > >This appears to me at variance with these words, which I have tried >unavailingly to construe as John intends: > >If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits, and... the withdrawn call (in the case of a Woo 2) does not relate to a suit. It relates to a suit *and another unspecified suit*. "Suit" is not the same as "Suit and another unspecified suit" If I use an Unusual 2NT over a 1 heart opening the specified suit (or suits) are C + D. Law 26A2. If I use a Woo 2S, the suits (plural) are not specified. Law 26B. "I'll have a lager please", does not mean I want lime or cider or lemon in it. It means I want a lager (26a2). If I want lager and something (who cares what) I'd say "Lager and something (who cares what)" (26B) and if I want lager and lime I'll say "Handbag" (26a2). By the time you've withdrawn all these calls you'll also owe Wendy (the long-suffering Young Chelsea barmaid) several drinks. cheers john > >David Burn >London, England > > -- 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 Dec 24 06:34:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 06:34:47 +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 GAA29447 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 06:34:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.140.230] (helo=davidburn) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 121E0M-0002Un-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 19:34:30 +0000 Message-ID: <001501bf4d7c$d4ac2c40$e68c01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 19:35:11 -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 John Probst wrote the following remarkable words: > the withdrawn call (in the case of a Woo 2) does not relate to a suit. > It relates to a suit *and another unspecified suit*. One might as well say that spinach is not green, because it is both green and a vegetable. If a thing is X and Y, then it is X. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 06:42:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 06:42:24 +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 GAA29487 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 06:42:14 +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 121E7b-000CXH-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 19:42:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 16:52:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <1.5.4.32.19991223144053.006fcf50@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19991223144053.006fcf50@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: >At 09:57 AM 12/23/99 -0000, you wrote: >> >>> Again I must disagree. The information content of the two different >>> meanings of the call is entirely different. There seems no reason to >>> suppose that one should apply the same penalty in both cases. >> >>Well, (a) means that North has a hand of about 5-9 hcp with 5+ (or, as >>it might be in disciplined partnerships, 6+) spades. (b) means that >>North has a hand of about 5-9 hcp with 5+ spades, except that he >>happens not to be 5332. If these are "entirely" different, then not >>only must I give up bridge in the Netherlands, I must give up using >>the word "entirely", for it clearly means nothing like what I have >>believed all my life that it means. >> >>David Burn >>London, England > >in the acbl, we receive official propoganda according to which a >suit bid is conventional if it provides distributional information >beyond the suit named. hence, a 2h overcall of a 1nt opening bid that >shows hearts and a minor is deemed to be conventional. > >in contrast, a weak2 is deemed a natural call because it provides >distributional information that is limited to the suit named. > >by that standard a weak 2s opening bid is natural, while a muildenberg >2s opening bid showing spades and an unknown minor is conventional, >and in the acbl that would be enough to name these two bids 'entirely >different' from a legal point of view. > >at least, that's how it's been explained to me. That is how it seems to me, as well, but is it entirely relevant? L26A and L26B are not divided by whether the withdrawn call was conventional, but by a definition within L26. David has a view on what the difference ought to be, but it does not seem to be based on the notion of what a convention is, either. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 06:42:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 06:42:24 +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 GAA29486 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 06:42:13 +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 121E7V-000EZz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 19:41:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 17:28:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <199912222346.SAA11185@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003101bf4cec$f873e180$3d9b01d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <003101bf4cec$f873e180$3d9b01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >What the Bridge World is trying to do is sound out public opinion on >various questions, but they are all in principle related to the >meta-question of whether we want a system of laws based on fixed >penalties (which will be simple and consistent, but which will lead to >random inequities) or whether we want a system based on equity being >done in each individual case within a framework of laws that are >consonant with some ideal of "sportsmanship" or "fair play". As I have >said, I would be entirely happy with either - though my personal >preference, as any will deduce who have read my view that the revoke >penalty should be summary execution - is for a fixed-penalty system. >The decisive advantage of this over an equity-based system, in my >view, is that it would not be susceptible to corruption. Moreover, I >believe the essence of sportsmanship to lie not in acts of sporadic >altruism but in acceptance, without demur, of a maxim that I learned >when I first picked up a cricket bat: "The umpire's decision is >final". > >While I would be happy with either a fixed-penalty or an equity-based >system of laws, I am not happy with both - or neither - which is in my >view what we have at the moment. My suggestion that L26 be subsumed in >L16 had nothing to do with my personal preference, which is that >people who show suits when it's not their turn ought to be boiled in >oil. It was merely a way to move what is perceived by many as an >arbitrary set of fixed penalties into the domain of equity-based >rulings. I perceive that the trend may be towards such rulings, as the >Bridge World suggests; in that case, let us move everything as far as >we may in that direction, and let us do it as soon as possible. While I agree with the basic idea of not mixing equity and fixed penalty if avoidable, and think that L26 is a mess as a result, I think we should look a little further at what you do want. Do you think it workable, practical or desirable to reduce everything to one or the other? Or are you merely suggesting that separate situations should be one or the other? I like the idea that situations should be one or the other. However, to make the overall approach one or the other would be very difficult. If all infractions were solved by equity-based Laws, the TD's job would become very difficult indeed, and it is very difficult to see how a Club TD would cope. I have always argued in favour of the penalty tricks for a revoke because looking at every hand to restore equity would be a nightmare for Club TDs. In the smaller English clubs the TD probably deals with thirty revokes in the same time as a single hesitation. Of course, penalty-based Laws would be more workable. I think the notion of giving a set scale of penalties for *everything* would work well, and would be acceptable to bridge players in time. I doubt that it would seem fair in basic hesitation situations, but would probably become acceptable in time. Example: Suppose a hand is found to have a card short at the end of the hand. I think a penalty in the Law book of two tricks for this would become acceptable in time. No need to search for the reason, try to establish which trick, was it there all along, did the player revoke, or anything. Just charge him his two tricks. Easy peasy, and more in line with other sports. So, I believe that a penalty-based set of Laws are workable, but not an equity-based one. However, I quite like the current approach, but not the details. I agree with simplifying some cases, and making some cases more penalty-based - but I would still deal with hesitations the same way as before. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 08:09:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 08:09:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from lisa.inter.net.il (lisa.inter.net.il [192.116.202.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29845 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 08:09:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from zahav.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-159.access.net.il [213.8.1.159] (may be forged)) by lisa.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24724 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 23:10:22 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38628F9B.71719C93@zahav.net.il> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 23:09:47 +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 - December 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 member m m eeee rrrr y y cccc h h rrrr ii sss tttt m m a sss m mm m e r r y y c h h r r ii s tt m mm m a a s m mm m eeee rr y c hhhhh rr ii ss tt m mm m aaaa ss m m m e r r y c h h r r ii s tt m m m a a s m m m eeee r r y cccc h h r r ii sss tt m m m a a sss Here is the 16th release of the almost 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) Larry Bennett - Rosie , Rattie (none) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 9 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 08:25:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 08:25:38 +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 IAA29899 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 08:25:31 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 3.0.1096f762 (4216); Thu, 23 Dec 1999 16:24:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.1096f762.2593ed1e@aol.com> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 16:24:46 EST Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? 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 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 12/22/99 11:53:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, dburn@btinternet.com writes: > The lead penalty > for an insufficient bid should be *either* "don't lead anything suggested by > UI" (the equitable version) *or* "declarer can tell you what suit to lead" ( > the > simple version). It should not be what it currently is - some God-awful > hybrid > about which we can all wrangle to our hearts' content while the game itself > withers and dies. > > David Burn > London, England If there is anyone who thinks David Burn is overstating the case, look around you -- particularly in the ACBL. I agree with his concept, but I'd like to get the semantics changed to have only Laws which are the structure of the game, and Rules which are where we make people behave themselves. These rules could then be tailored to fit the local requirements when necessary, and not affect the basic form of the game much as Rules do in other worldwide games. But, that's probably a dream from too much good wine, and I'm sure I will hear loud and long about my simplistic and ridiculous approach. Besides, what then would the BLs have to discuss? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 09:32:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:32:10 +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 JAA00227 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:32:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.138.248] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 121Gm3-0004Py-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 22:31:56 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf4d95$9d857be0$f88a01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <1.5.4.32.19991223144053.006fcf50@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 22:32:36 -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 > Henry Sun wrote: > >in the acbl, we receive official propoganda according to which a > >suit bid is conventional if it provides distributional information > >beyond the suit named. hence, a 2h overcall of a 1nt opening bid that > >shows hearts and a minor is deemed to be conventional. > > > >in contrast, a weak2 is deemed a natural call because it provides > >distributional information that is limited to the suit named. > > > >by that standard a weak 2s opening bid is natural, while a muildenberg > >2s opening bid showing spades and an unknown minor is conventional, > >and in the acbl that would be enough to name these two bids 'entirely > >different' from a legal point of view. Quite so - a weak 2S is natural, a Muiderberg 2S is not. But I'm not sure what this has to do with L26, which does not say: "If a bid is natural, do one thing, otherwise do another thing". It says: "If a bid is related to a suit or suits, do one thing, otherwise do another thing", and I will continue to maintain despite opposition from certain learned quarters that a bid which shows 5+ spades is related to spades whatever else it may additionally show. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 09:42:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:42:36 +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 JAA00274 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:42:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.154.91] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 121Gw9-0002sZ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 22:42:21 +0000 Message-ID: <000901bf4d97$12054940$5b9a01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 22:43:01 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote words whose truth I have decided to accept on purely financial grounds: > the withdrawn call (in the case of a Woo 2) does not relate to a suit. > It relates to a suit *and another unspecified suit*. At this time of year, it is my custom to buy gifts for my relations. Now, I am related to my brother and my sister, so I had thought to buy presents for both of them. However, according to the logic of the above, it appears that I am not related to my brother after all, which is going to save me a great deal of money this year. Thank you, John, and a Merry Christmas to everyone (except, of course, my brother). David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 13:22:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:22:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00907 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:21:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 121KMU-0009LK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 02:21:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 23:17:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <001501bf4d7c$d4ac2c40$e68c01d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <001501bf4d7c$d4ac2c40$e68c01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >John Probst wrote the following remarkable words: > >> the withdrawn call (in the case of a Woo 2) does not relate to a >suit. >> It relates to a suit *and another unspecified suit*. > >One might as well say that spinach is not green, because it is both >green and a vegetable. If a thing is X and Y, then it is X. The logic is impeccable, but ... I would say that the EBU interpretation is that the words "relate to a specified suit or suits" mean that the whole of the relation is to _specified_ suit or suits. If the call relates to suits then they need all be specified for L26A to apply. I also believe this to be both a possible and a sensible interpretation. I do agree that L26A can be read in other ways. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 14:35:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:35:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01330 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:35:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.70] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 121LVc-0008Dk-00; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:35:16 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01bf4dbf$f78bf4a0$465408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" Cc: References: <001501bf4d7c$d4ac2c40$e68c01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:34:58 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 7:35 PM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > John Probst wrote the following remarkable words: > > > the withdrawn call (in the case of a Woo 2) does not relate to a > suit. > > It relates to a suit *and another unspecified suit*. > > One might as well say that spinach is not green, because it is both > green and a vegetable. If a thing is X and Y, then it is X. > +=+ One in six, we learn, suffer hangovers as a result of eating brassica; the other five just use alcohol. (Current medical research). What you point to, David, is based on good English practice - I find it difficult to claim this standard for the text of our current laws. Whatever they mean I believe in fact that the aim was to deal in A with bids that showed only specified suits (those that can be named), leaving B to cover all else. However, at this distance from the drafting it could be derided if one were to talk with absolute conviction. In my exchange with John Probst I have followed a line which says: if a suit has been specified allow declarer to require it to be led; in parallel offer the alternative option of prohibiting the lead of any one suit. I thought this might cover everyone's better intentions more or less - except for boiling in oil or the bastinado. It is the kind of situation that I feel should be cleared up, but which OFs are inclined to leave for another eight years at least. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 14:35:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:35:37 +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 OAA01334 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:35:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.70] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 121LVa-0008Dk-00; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:35:14 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01bf4dbf$f65633c0$465408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:07:47 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 3:24 PM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > In article <003c01bf4d1c$25ea5340$415408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott > writes > >> > >+=+ It is arguable that whilst 'mechanical' actions in breach > >of the laws are susceptible to mechanical penalties, the > >Director requires to use bridge judgement and endeavour > >to restore equity where the breach of the law is itself based > >on the player's use of bridge judgement (largely in UI > >situations). The ACBL approach to the latter kind of > >situation might be said to employ bridge judgement in > >establishing whether there is a violation and then, via > >12C2, seeking to apply a penalty that is as nearly > >mechanical as possible. > > Such an approach does throw into question > >the statement that "The Laws are primarily designed not > >as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress > >for damage". I have developed in a bridge culture where > >score adjustment is not intended to penalize a fault but > >to restore equity as nearly as possible. Where it came to > >be seen that in a significant number of cases 12C2 > >substitutes one inequity for another, a means (12C3) > >was devised to allow of more balanced adjustments > >such as the European culture was already making in > >some cases without a clear mandate from the laws > >to do so.It is my belief that where a major international > >body is acting outside of the laws it is not desirable for > >matters to remain in that condition; if the body is > >seen to be justified in what it is doing (or is unwilling to > >change its approach) the law should be moved to > >encompass the action and otherwise the body should > >return to the fold. It is mostly for these situations that > >I believe it is no longer common sense to wait for ten > >years to change laws, but there are powerful voices > >raised against any move to respond more quickly to > >such a problem; indeed where Kaplan was willing to > >bend by inserting a footnote in the laws there is > >currently even a distaste for footnotes giving options. > >(It may be recalled that 12C3 arrived as a footnote > >in words devised by Dennis Howard, although it > >appears its arrival was not reported to the ACBL for > >a long time afterwards - possibly because Kaplan > >had no relish for tackling the mid-Atlantic cultural > >divide, or more likely because he did not want the > >ACBL to adopt it. I do not think he ever came to > >terms with the fact that there are far more bridge > >players over here than within the ACBL.). > > As for Law 26 I am wondering about something > >like this: "When an offending player's call is withdrawn > >and he chooses a different final call for that turn, then > >if he becomes a defender the declarer at the offender's > >partner's first turn to lead may require the offender's > >partner to lead a > > any would be better here as it caters for spades in a withdrawn Woo > 2S, C+D in a withdrawn 1N overcall of 1H > > > suit specified by the withdrawn call > >or may prohibit the offender's partner from leading > >any one suit, such prohibition to continue for as long > >as the offender's partner retains the lead. (Declarer > >selects his option when offender's partner first has > >the lead. A call repeated with a much different > >meaning shall be deemed a different call.)" > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > subject to this I find the wording clear and workable. > +=+ I am not used to this kind of treatment. It might go to my head. In fact I cobbled together for the purpose language taken from the current law book; I find it turgid and would seek to produce a more English style for it if we were to move in this direction. I would like to be clear about Woo. Please tell me in words of two syllables or less what a Woo specifies, what does the explanation of a Woo say? Does it really *specify* the minor(s)? If there is any ambiguity about the minor suit specification are you saying you want the minor(s) covered anyway? I wonder what the rest of the world (and Kojak) thinks about that? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 14:55:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:55:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01420 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:54:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 121LoS-00018z-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:54:45 +0000 Message-ID: <2jr8kuA$tuY4Ewda@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:41:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <000901bf4d97$12054940$5b9a01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000901bf4d97$12054940$5b9a01d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes >John Probst wrote words whose truth I have decided to accept on purely >financial grounds: > >> the withdrawn call (in the case of a Woo 2) does not relate to a >suit. >> It relates to a suit *and another unspecified suit*. > >At this time of year, it is my custom to buy gifts for my relations. >Now, I am related to my brother and my sister, so I had thought to buy >presents for both of them. However, according to the logic of the >above, it appears that I am not related to my brother after all, which >is going to save me a great deal of money this year. Thank you, John, >and a Merry Christmas to everyone (except, of course, my brother). > >David Burn >London, England > > nope, brother *and* sister are both specified, 26A2, and you don't need to buy either a present as it's withdrawn. think how much I've saved you chs john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 14:55:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:55:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01422 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:54:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 121LoT-000EHk-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:54:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:51:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <001d01bf4dbf$f65633c0$465408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001d01bf4dbf$f65633c0$465408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip > "When an offending player's call is withdrawn >> >and he chooses a different final call for that turn, then >> >if he becomes a defender the declarer at the offender's >> >partner's first turn to lead may require the offender's >> >partner to lead a >> >> any would be better here as it caters for spades in a withdrawn Woo >> 2S, C+D in a withdrawn 1N overcall of 1H >> >> > suit specified by the withdrawn call >> >or may prohibit the offender's partner from leading >> >any one suit, such prohibition to continue for as long >> >as the offender's partner retains the lead. (Declarer >> >selects his option when offender's partner first has >> >the lead. A call repeated with a much different >> >meaning shall be deemed a different call.)" >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> subject to this I find the wording clear and workable. >> >+=+ I am not used to this kind of treatment. It might go >to my head. In fact I cobbled together for the purpose >language taken from the current law book; I find it >turgid and would seek to produce a more English >style for it if we were to move in this direction. Grattan, for you this is a model of clarity :-) > I would like to be clear about Woo. Woo 2's are Muiderberg 2's, but easier to type 2H/S show 5H/S and a lower ranking *unknown* 4+ card suit ^^^^^^^ two syllables > Please tell >me in words of two syllables or less what a Woo >specifies, what does the explanation of a Woo say? >Does it really *specify* the minor(s)? > If there is any ambiguity about the minor suit >specification are you saying you want the minor(s) >covered anyway? Nope I want to be able to insist on specified suit(s) and prohibit any. This gives me a little more power than the current Law 26 gives. But it's mildly more PC than the bastinado. >I wonder what the rest of the >world (and Kojak) thinks about that? Kojak is governed by Bud (who's a pretty damn fine TD herself) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 14:55:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:55:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01421 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:54:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 121LoS-000190-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:54:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 03:53:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <000d01bf4d95$9d857be0$f88a01d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000d01bf4d95$9d857be0$f88a01d5@davidburn>, David Burn writes >> Henry Sun wrote: > >> >in the acbl, we receive official propoganda according to which a >> >suit bid is conventional if it provides distributional information >> >beyond the suit named. hence, a 2h overcall of a 1nt opening bid >that >> >shows hearts and a minor is deemed to be conventional. >> > >> >in contrast, a weak2 is deemed a natural call because it provides >> >distributional information that is limited to the suit named. >> > >> >by that standard a weak 2s opening bid is natural, while a >muildenberg >> >2s opening bid showing spades and an unknown minor is conventional, >> >and in the acbl that would be enough to name these two bids >'entirely >> >different' from a legal point of view. > >Quite so - a weak 2S is natural, a Muiderberg 2S is not. But I'm not >sure what this has to do with L26, which does not say: "If a bid is >natural, do one thing, otherwise do another thing". It says: "If a bid >is related to a suit or suits, do one thing, otherwise do another >thing", and I will continue to maintain despite opposition from >certain learned quarters that a bid which shows 5+ spades *and another unspecified suit* > is related >to spades whatever else it may additionally show. and whatever else it shows is that it isn't *just* spades Still L26B (sigh) > >David Burn >London, England > > -- 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 Dec 24 15:52:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:52:04 +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 PAA01643 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:51:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.147] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 121Mhg-0009Ge-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 04:51:48 +0000 Message-ID: <002101bf4dca$a8853d20$935608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <001501bf4d7c$d4ac2c40$e68c01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 04:50:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan EndicottI do agree that > L26A can be read in other ways. > +=+ Has anyone counted this thread? Has Herman taken his ball home? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 16:35:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:35:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01789 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:34:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.194] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 121NNG-0009rD-00; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 05:34:46 +0000 Message-ID: <005c01bf4dd0$a91f4b80$935608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 05:32:23 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 3:51 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > > Kojak is governed by Bud (who's a pretty damn fine TD herself) > +=+ Now you are on pretty slippery ground there. He loves her deeply and his (not always obvious) subservience is voluntary. According to my instructions the rest of what you say is unarguable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 16:35:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:35:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01790 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:34:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.194] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 121NNH-0009rD-00; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 05:34:47 +0000 Message-ID: <005d01bf4dd0$a9f05720$935608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Law26 (was.....) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 05:33:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 3:51 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > >> > > Nope I want to be able to insist on specified suit(s) and prohibit any. > This gives me a little more power than the current Law 26 gives. But > it's mildly more PC than the bastinado. > +=+ All right. So would you accept or not: (1) require lead in any suit in which the withdrawn call has shown a holding or (2) prohibit lead of any one suit in the attempt to retreat from the potential for argument over 'specified'? And do you think it might be desirable to cover situations where the withdrawn call has indicated a void? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 19:34:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:34:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02373 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:34:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.147.227] (helo=davidburn) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 121QBD-00054c-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 08:34:31 +0000 Message-ID: <002501bf4de9$cd02e160$e39301d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001501bf4d7c$d4ac2c40$e68c01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 08:35:14 -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 DWS wrote: > I would say that the EBU interpretation is that the words > > "relate to a specified suit or suits" mean that the whole of the > relation is to _specified_ suit or suits. If the call relates to suits > then they need all be specified for L26A to apply. I also believe this > to be both a possible and a sensible interpretation. I do agree that > L26A can be read in other ways. I think we have got about as far as we can with this. I agree entirely with the notion that using 26B instead of 26A in the case of a call that relates both to a specified suit and to an unspecified suit is a sensible enough thing to do. I do not agree that this is a possible interpretation of the English words in the Laws, and reading Grattan's message it appears that he might not agree either. I contend that no TD who was unaware of the "EBU interpretation" would ever arrive at it unaided through perusing the text, for it is simply not what the words say. But it would not be difficult to amend the law thus: "If the withdrawn call related entirely to a specified suit or suits..." except that a footnote might be required to the effect that the word "entirely" is not to be interpreted in the Probst sense of "slightly". David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 19:48:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:48:28 +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 TAA02423 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 19:48:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA25866 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:48:11 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Dec 24 09:48:11 1999 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJVJ2N5X8Y005TL0@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:47:28 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:47:28 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:47:24 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: channel juniors To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At the end of Decenber we had our annual meeting between England (Great Britain, I don't know), France, Belgium and the Netherlandsfor juniors and young juniors (up to 25 and up to 20(?)). For obvious reasons held somewhere near the Channel, this time in my country in Zeeland. Last match juniors between The Netherlands and England. South picks up Kx x xx AKQJxxxx and opens 3NT in I don't know which board (let us suppose it was in first or second bidding seat (board 3 or 2 (mod 4)) West starts with DA and dummy comes down with AJxxx JTxx QJxx -. Seeing his dummy south starts smiling and says 'oejoejoei' or something similar. After which he adds: 'well, may be I have an entry'. West starts thinking and now produces the Q of spades after which declarer makes 11 tricks. Given as a fact: it was the last match, the Netherlands were close to being virtual winners already (popular phrase in my country) and the players were talking too much. Suppose you were called at the table, which didn't happen. Would you do something? West apparently anticipated on the remark, assuming south having HK and hoping for S KTx in east. Let us assume that south did not have the intention to mislead his opponents. After 'oejoejoei' suggesting a wasteless hand he had a poblem. He couldn't give away his hand by saying he had an entry, that is the same as claiming the contract for one off. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 20:39:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 20:39:09 +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 UAA02526 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 20:39:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA12778 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:38:52 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Dec 24 10:38:53 1999 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JJVKV64D16005UDG@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:38:42 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:38:43 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:38:37 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Law26A2 or Law26B? To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2E4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David Burn [mailto:Dburn@btinternet.com] > Verzonden: vrijdag 24 december 1999 9:35 > Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > > DWS wrote: > > > I would say that the EBU interpretation is that the words > > > > "relate to a specified suit or suits" mean that the whole of the > > relation is to _specified_ suit or suits. If the call relates to > suits > > then they need all be specified for L26A to apply. I also believe > this > > to be both a possible and a sensible interpretation. I do agree > that > > L26A can be read in other ways. > > I think we have got about as far as we can with this. I agree entirely > with the notion that using 26B instead of 26A in the case of a call > that relates both to a specified suit and to an unspecified suit is a > sensible enough thing to do. I do not agree that this is a possible > interpretation of the English words in the Laws, and reading Grattan's > message it appears that he might not agree either. I contend that no > TD who was unaware of the "EBU interpretation" would ever arrive at it > unaided through perusing the text, for it is simply not what the words > say. But it would not be difficult to amend the law thus: > > "If the withdrawn call related entirely to a specified suit or > suits..." > > except that a footnote might be required to the effect that the word > "entirely" is not to be interpreted in the Probst sense of "slightly". I knew about this one the other way around: saying that I am slightly confused reading your message it doesn't need a footnote to understand that I mean entirely. So I agree with you and the others that once more we found a text being multi-interpretable. I am not so sure that all your TD's, clever as they are (I maintain that position for all my life just to create a distinction in attitude with Edgar Kaplan), would read it differently. What in 'your'interpretation is the meaning of 'or specified suits'? That doesn't make much sense anymore, so it seems to me. In your interpretation the second is a partial collection of the first, as is a bid showing a known and unknown suit. So the fact that the distinction is there leads to the conclusion that it should be read as exactly one suit exclusive or two suits. ton > > David Burn > London, England > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 20:48:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 20:48:51 +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 UAA02553 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 20:48:42 +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 KAA07710 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:46:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <38634153.D7465DD4@eduhi.at> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:48:03 +0100 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [de] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: last deal's pass Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a friedly game (using bidding boxes), the following happened: Board 22 was passed out. On Board 23, amid some polite conversation (very much in line with L74A1, though possibly an infraction of L74B1 - but remember, it was a friendly game) N found PASS - PASS on the table, passed, and E passed also. When everyone was about to return the cards to the board, W claimed she had not yet called, and the PASS-card had been left over from the last board. It was agreed to return the auction to her and just continue, but what if it had happened in a serious competition? The position is: S W N E P (1) P P (1) left out, last deal's PASS-card on the table If last deal's PASS is considered irrelevant, applying L17E, even if S passed again, W would have another chance to call (very welcome with 21HCP). But maybe it should be argued the W should have removed the PASS in time if she did not intend to PASS at this turn. And what if E had called the TD, claiming a POOT by N? N might argue it was W's fault... From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 21:35:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:35:35 +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 VAA02729 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:35:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-25.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.25]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04533 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 11:35:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3863441F.834E93CF@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:59:59 +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: Statistics Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Data gathered on 14 december 1999 : Number of subsxribers : 261 7 people seem to want to read everything double, so Number of readers : 254 Distribution by zone : Zone 1 (Europe) 97 (26 countries) GB : 30 DE : 11 NL : 10 DK : 7 BE, FR, IL : 5 RU : 3 CH, PL, PT : 2 AT, CZ, EE, ES, FI, GL, GR, HU, IE, IS, IT, NO, SE, TR, UA : 1 Zone 2 (North America) 73 (3 countries) US : 60 CA : 12 BM : 1 Zone 3 (South America) none Zone 4 (Africa & South Asia) 3 (3 countries) EG, IN, ZA : 1 Zone 5 (Middle America) 1 (1 country) GY : 1 Zone 6 (Far East) 6 (4 countries) JP, SG : 2 ID, TW : 1 Zone 7 (Oceania) 24 (2 countries) AU : 17 NZ : 7 total identified : 204 in 39 countries unidentified : 50 (33 .com, 4 .edu, 12 .net, 1 .org) Top posters in 1999 (position)(position in 1998) 1189 (1) (1) David Stevenson 663 (2) (3) Herman De Wael 641 (3) (2) Marvin L. French 602 (4) (5) Grattan Endicott 412 (5) (4) Steve Willner 402 (6) (6) John (MadDog) Probst 327 (7) (7) Eric Landau 314 (8) (10) Michael S. Dennis 253 (9) (24) Roger Pewick 242 (10) (12) Jesper Dybdal 241 (11) (17) Adam Beneschan 223 (12) (13) Anne Jones 197 (13) Schoder "Kojak" 193 (14) (22) David Burn 179 (15) (18) Jan Kamras 161 (16) (9) Craig Senior 158 (17) (14) David Grabiner 142 (18) (8) Dany Haimovici 130 (19) (29) Tim West-Meads 127 (20) Ed Reppert 125 (21) (35) Hirsch Davis 112 (22) (73) Kooijman 100 (23) (21) Grant Sterling 90 (24) (61) Jean-Pierre Rocafort 77 (25) Martin Sinot 75 (26) (20) Robin Barker 75 (26) (30) Anton Witzen 74 (28) (28) Michael Farebrother 73 (29) Bertel Lund Hansen 68 (30) Peter Gill 62 (31) (19) Tim Goodwin 58 (32) (97) Richard Bley 57 (33) (30) Jeremy Rickard 49 (34) (30) Linda Trent 44 (35) (128) Fearghal O'Boyle 42 (36) (47) Richard F Beye 40 (37) (45) Laval Dubreuil 40 (37) (45) John R. Mayne 39 (39) (27) Richard Lighton 39 (39) (38) Henk Uijterwaal 38 (41) (40) A.L. Edwards 37 (42) (78) Wayne Burrows 37 (42) Bruce J.Moore 36 (44) (24) Nancy T. Dressing 35 (45) Konrad Ciborowski 34 (46) (15) Vitold Brushtunov 34 (46) (51) Tony Musgrove 33 (48) (64) Michael Amos 30 (49) (147) Magda Thain 29 (50) (107) Ron Johnson 28 (51) (11) David Martin 27 (52) (43) Adam Wildavsky 26 (53) (26) Jeff Goldsmith 26 (53) Marcel Schoof 25 (55) (40) KRAllison@aol.com 24 (56) (42) Laurie Kelso 24 (56) (90) Brian Baresch 22 (58) (78) Michael Albert 22 (58) Norman H. Hostetler 21 (60) (34) Richard Willey 20 (61) (49) af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de(Thomas Dehn) 20 (61) (68) Norman Scorbie 19 (63) (50) Gordon Bower 19 (63) (68) Robert Nordgren 19 (63) (90) Peter Newman 19 (63) Michael Schmahl 18 (67) (53) Jan Peter Pals 18 (67) (60) Markus Buchhorn 17 (69) (72) B A Small 17 (69) (97) Sergey Kapustin 17 (69) Farley, Wally 16 (72) (37) John S. Nichols 16 (72) (146) Jac Fuchs 15 (74) (53) Irwin J. Kostal 14 (75) (35) Mark Abraham 14 (75) (75) Christian Farwig 14 (75) (83) Richard or Barbara Odlin 14 (75) Canberra Bridge Club 13 (79) (68) RCraig Hemphill 13 (79) (90) \"Albert "biigAl" Lochli 13 (79) Brian Meadows 12 (82) (56) Chyah E Burghard 12 (82) Ted Ying 11 (84) (43) John A. Kuchenbrod 11 (84) (64) Don Kersey 11 (84) (97) Lormant Philippe 11 (84) (132) John MacGregor 11 (84) James.Vickers@merck.de 10 (89) (59) AlLeBendig 10 (89) (85) Francis, Geoff (Rotterdam) 10 (89) (102) Jan Romanski 9 (92) (147) Robert E Harris 9 (92) masterit 8 (94) (23) Jens & Bodil 8 (94) (61) Jon C. Brissman 8 (94) (85) David Kent 8 (94) (107) Rui Marques 8 (94) (127) Martaandras (Andras Booc) 8 (94) Flemming Bogh-Sorensen 8 (94) Phillip Mendelsohn 7 (101) (51) Jay Apfelbaum 7 (101) (102) Bill Bickford 6 (103) (85) Barry Wolk 6 (103) (90) Patrick Carter 6 (103) (147) Ian Crorie 5 (106) (30) Bill Segraves 5 (106) (48) Evert Angad-Gaur 5 (106) (55) David Metcalf 5 (106) (68) Sergei Litvak 5 (106) (75) Chris Pisarra 5 (106) (78) Eitan Levy 5 (106) (85) Con Holzscherer 5 (106) (90) Ralf Teichmann 5 (106) (115) Jim Boyce 5 (106) Derrick Heng 4 (116) (56) Reg Busch 4 (116) (102) André Pion 4 (116) (102) Yvan Calamé 4 (116) (136) Kryst, Jack 4 (116) (147) Paul D Harrington 4 (116) (147) non-reader 4 (116) Aavo Heinlo 4 (116) Edouard Beauvilain 4 (116) B.Y. 3 (125) (73) J. Atkinson 3 (125) (90) Peter Haglich 3 (125) (107) Damian Hassan 3 (125) (137) Ian Reissmann 3 (125) (147) Stephanie Rohan 3 (125) Petrus Schuster 3 (125) pamhad@netcomuk.co.uk 3 (125) Dave Armstrong 3 (125) Sveinn Runar (Svenni) Eiriksson 3 (125) Lino Tralhao 3 (125) Joan Gerard 3 (125) Sandy Singer 3 (125) Fred D. Curtis 2 (138) (64) Simon Edler 2 (138) (102) Mike Dodson 2 (138) (107) Vytautas Rekus 2 (138) (115) Ercan Kuru 2 (138) (134) Martin Hunter 2 (138) (139) Michael Kopera 2 (138) John McIlrath 2 (138) Peter Hart 2 (138) Jaap Herman 2 (138) Clemens Oelker 2 (138) Erich Ossa 2 (138) Trevor Walker 2 (138) J.C.Lohmann 2 (138) Sjoerd Schreuder 2 (138) Julian Lighton 2 (138) Michael Nistler 2 (138) Mark Bartusek 2 (138) Chip 2 (138) Fred Flam 1 (157) (78) Christian Chantigny 1 (157) (78) Martin Kretschmar 1 (157) (97) Paul Barden 1 (157) (107) Georgiana Gates, Leslie West 1 (157) (115) Roger Penny 1 (157) (115) Norbert Fornoville 1 (157) (130) Kent V Burghard 1 (157) (133) Jan Boets 1 (157) (142) Rusty Court 1 (157) (147) Grahame Jones 1 (157) (147) Noblet-Dominique 1 (157) (147) Ilan Shezifi 1 (157) (147) Vinay Desay 1 (157) (147) Mary Crenshaw 1 (157) (147) Demeter Manning 1 (157) (147) Richard Colker 1 (157) Bruce 1 (157) Matthew McManus 1 (157) Mark Lincoln 1 (157) Laszlo Hegedus 1 (157) Paul Lippens 1 (157) Mary Buckland 1 (157) Bruce Owen 1 (157) Sven-Olov (Tjolpe) Flodqvist 1 (157) Bob Lake 1 (157) Steve Nathan 1 (157) Dave Cutler 1 (157) Linda Mitchell 1 (157) Henry Sun 1 (157) Rand Pinsky total messages : 9476 in 350 days = 27 mails per day. (1998 : 18.4) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 21:35:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:35:33 +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 VAA02726 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:35:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-25.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.25]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04505 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 11:35:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3863370A.2AD0A2C7@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:04:10 +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: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <00d801bf4be1$fdfffc80$a6d73ad0@hdavis> <386041E0.B2361026@mindspring.com> <000f01bf4c78$80f09460$509d01d5@davidburn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > [snip] Enough ranting, David, now let's get back to the original question : 1NT - pass - 2Di - 2Sp 2He Is 2He conventional in the sense of L27B1a ? Does 2He specify hearts in the sense of L26A ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 21:35:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:35:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02727 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:35:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-25.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.25]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04517 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 11:35:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <38633B29.267DCB@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:21:45 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <001501bf4d7c$d4ac2c40$e68c01d5@davidburn> <002101bf4dca$a8853d20$935608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "The great enemy of the truth is often not the lie..... > ....... but the myth" (J.F.K.) > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >I do agree that > > L26A can be read in other ways. > > > +=+ Has anyone counted this thread? Has Herman > taken his ball home? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I haven't counted this thread yet. I have prepared the statistics of 1999 a bit earlier last week, and I will post them today. This thread will not make the 1999 statistics then. I am unfamiliar with the expression taken his ball home. I am taking my mother on a mediterrenean cruise starting tomorrow, but I doubnt if that is what is meant there. I wish all of you a merry christmas, a glorious new year and 366 more days to this wonderful second millenium of ours ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 21:59:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:59:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02833 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:59:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.144.253] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 121SQz-0005Mf-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:58:57 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf4dfd$fa567d20$fd9001d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2E4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:59:39 -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 Ton Kooijman wrote: > What in > 'your'interpretation is the meaning of 'or specified suits'? That doesn't > make much sense anymore, so it seems to me. The clause in question in L26 is construed: If the call related to a specified suit, or... ...if the call related to two or more specified suits A 1S call that shows spades is related to the specified suit: spades. A 2D opening that shows the majors is related to the two specified suits: spades and hearts. A Precision 2D opening is (in my opinion) related to the three specified suits: spades, hearts, and clubs. A Muiderberg 2S opening is related to the specified suit: spades. The fact that is is also related to an unspecified suit does not change the fact that it is related to the spade suit, and thus does not change the fact that it is "related to a specified suit or suits"... but I have said all this already. > In your interpretation the > second is a partial collection of the first No, it is not. A bid may relate to more than one suit, and if it relates to more than one specified suit, then declarer has the rights conferred by L26A2 in respect of all such suits not specified by the same player in the later legal auction. > as is a bid showing a known and unknown suit. A bid showing a known suit and an unknown suit is related to the specified (known) suit. The fact that it is also related to an unknown suit does not change the fact that it is related to the known suit. Probst may sigh all he likes about this, but that is what the words say. > So the fact that the distinction is there leads to the > conclusion that it should be read as exactly one suit exclusive or two > suits. The distinction is there in order to bring two- or three-suited bids within the same purview as one-suited bids in respect of lead penalties. You and I, Ton, may not think it right that declarer can require the lead of a shown suit, but it is the case that he can. If a player makes a bid that shows spades, declarer can require a spade lead; it is only logical that if a player makes a bid that shows majors, declarer can require a spade lead or a heart lead. That is why the words "or suits" appear. Please be aware that I am not unsympathetic to the effects of the Dutch interpretation. If I could find a way of construing L26 that supported the interpretation, I would be happy. But DWS has repeatedly told us that we must rule according to what the words say, and it appears from his latest message on this thread that I believe this more strongly than he does. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 24 23:51:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:51:29 +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 XAA03270 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:51:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from p7cs08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.125] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1217um-0001dE-00; Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:04:21 +0000 Message-ID: <001401bf4e0d$43c21f00$7d8893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:47:01 -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: 24 December 1999 08:46 Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > >except that a footnote might be required to the effect that the word >"entirely" is not to be interpreted in the Probst sense of "slightly". > +=+ That sounds 'slightly' off-key ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 00:23:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:23:25 +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 AAA03441 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:23:14 +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 121UgQ-0008r9-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:23:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:05:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Christmas greetings MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ++ /\ //\\ MERRY XMAS *//O\\\* ////\\\\ and a */////\\\O\ ////O/\\\\\\* HAPPY NEW YEAR *///////\\\O\\\ O////O///\\\\\\\\* from /////////\\\\O\\\\ *///////O//\\\\\\\O\\* DAVID ___ ___ || |___|___| || | | | || --- --- May the year 2000, the last year of the 20th century and of the second millennium, be your best year ever. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 25 00:23:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:23:24 +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 AAA03440 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:23:14 +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 121UgS-0008rf-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:23:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:57:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Disabled MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some time ago I asked for comments on the EBU's suggested regulations to cover players with disabilities. There was one constructive suggestion that seemed excellent, namely that such a player has the right to require the Dealer and vulnerability to be read out to him at the start of each board. The EBU's Laws & Ethics Committee has added that regulation as a result of the suggestion from BLML. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 25 01:27:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 01:27:37 +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 BAA03723 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 01:27:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:27:03 +0100 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.9.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id OAA11463 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:50:52 +0100 From: "Martin Sinot" To: Subject: RE: last deal's pass Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:19:45 +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 Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >In a friedly game (using bidding boxes), the following happened: >Board 22 was passed out. >On Board 23, amid some polite conversation (very much in line with >L74A1, though possibly an infraction of L74B1 - but remember, it was a >friendly game) N found PASS - PASS on the table, passed, and E passed >also. When everyone was about to return the cards to the board, W >claimed she had not yet called, and the PASS-card had been left over >from the last board. >It was agreed to return the auction to her and just continue, >but what if it had happened in a serious competition? >The position is: > >S W N E >P (1) P P (1) left out, last deal's PASS-card on the table > >If last deal's PASS is considered irrelevant, applying L17E, even if S >passed again, W would have another chance to call (very welcome with >21HCP). >But maybe it should be argued the W should have removed the PASS in time >if she did not intend to PASS at this turn. >And what if E had called the TD, claiming a POOT by N? N might argue it >was W's fault... Making a call when playing with bidding boxes is done by removing the desired card from the box and placing it on the table. The TD must therefore find out whether West really didn't call or just pulled the wrong card. I think I believe West in this case; it is a likely story and 21 HCP is hardly a borderline case for passing. So I rule that West didn't call. Then North made a pass out of turn, accepted by East. So South is the next bidder; however, if South passes too, then the last three passes are cancelled and the auction continues with West (L34). And what if East called the TD, you say? That seems extremely unlikely to me. Wouldn't he have warned his partner that her pass was still on the table in that case? -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 03:23:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 03:23:15 +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 DAA04194 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 03:23:01 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01882 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:22:50 +0100 Received: from ip98.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.98), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda01880; Fri Dec 24 17:22:42 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:22:42 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <0l676sggkfo001fkkh9dicdi519vunqir7@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <003c01bf4d1c$25ea5340$415408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003c01bf4d1c$25ea5340$415408c3@dodona> 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 DAA04195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 08:02:10 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >I believe it is no longer common sense to wait for ten >years to change laws, but there are powerful voices >raised against any move to respond more quickly to >such a problem; indeed where Kaplan was willing to >bend by inserting a footnote in the laws there is >currently even a distaste for footnotes giving options. >(It may be recalled that 12C3 arrived as a footnote >in words devised by Dennis Howard, although it >appears its arrival was not reported to the ACBL for >a long time afterwards - possibly because Kaplan >had no relish for tackling the mid-Atlantic cultural >divide, or more likely because he did not want the >ACBL to adopt it. I do not think he ever came to >terms with the fact that there are far more bridge >players over here than within the ACBL.). The major problem with that footnote was that too few people knew about it. It was not printed in the Danish translation of the 1987 laws, and only several years later did its existence become generally known in Denmark. I am fairly certain that this was simply due to bad communications, not to anybody's deliberate attempt to keep the knowledge from us. > As for Law 26 I am wondering about something >like this: "When an offending player's call is withdrawn >and he chooses a different final call for that turn, then >if he becomes a defender the declarer at the offender's >partner's first turn to lead may require the offender's >partner to lead a suit specified by the withdrawn call >or may prohibit the offender's partner from leading >any one suit, such prohibition to continue for as long >as the offender's partner retains the lead. (Declarer >selects his option when offender's partner first has >the lead. A call repeated with a much different >meaning shall be deemed a different call.)" I have two specific comments to this wording: (a) What does it mean to "specify" a suit? I suppose that showing shortness is also a "specification", but that may not be obvious. (b) Is it intentional that there is no mention of the situation in which the suit(s) is/are also specified in the legal auction? But remember that as long as L16C2 exists, the purpose of a lead penalty is not to ensure equity (L16C2 does that) but only to make life easier for the TD by reducing the number of occasions on which it is necessary to use L16C2 to achieve equity. With L16C2, I don't think we need a lead penalty at all. But if there is to be a lead penalty, I suggest that simply allowing declarer to forbid the lead of any one suit, regardless of what the withdrawn call showed, should be sufficient. On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 23:17:04 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > I would say that the EBU interpretation is that the words > > "relate to a specified suit or suits" mean that the whole of the >relation is to _specified_ suit or suits. If the call relates to suits >then they need all be specified for L26A to apply. That is also the interpretation used in the DBF. I agree with both Davids that it is a sensible interpretation, and with one David that it is not a natural way to read the words of L26. Merry Christmas! -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 03:53:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 03:53:39 +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 DAA04321 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 03:53:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtjn6.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.206.230]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA29283; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 11:53:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19991224170403.006fe080@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 09:04:03 -0800 To: "Kooijman, A." From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: channel juniors Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:47 AM 12/24/99 +0100, you wrote: >At the end of Decenber we had our annual meeting between England (Great >Britain, I don't know), France, Belgium and the Netherlandsfor juniors and >young juniors (up to 25 and up to 20(?)). For obvious reasons held somewhere >near the Channel, this time in my country in Zeeland. > >Last match juniors between The Netherlands and England. South picks up Kx x >xx AKQJxxxx and opens 3NT in I don't know which board (let us suppose it was >in first or second bidding seat (board 3 or 2 (mod 4)) West starts with DA >and dummy comes down with AJxxx JTxx QJxx -. Seeing his dummy south starts >smiling and says 'oejoejoei' or something similar. After which he adds: >'well, may be I have an entry'. >West starts thinking and now produces the Q of spades after which declarer >makes 11 tricks. >Given as a fact: it was the last match, the Netherlands were close to being >virtual winners already (popular phrase in my country) and the players were >talking too much. > >Suppose you were called at the table, which didn't happen. Would you do >something? > >West apparently anticipated on the remark, assuming south having HK and >hoping for S KTx in east. >Let us assume that south did not have the intention to mislead his >opponents. After 'oejoejoei' suggesting a wasteless hand he had a poblem. He >couldn't give away his hand by saying he had an entry, that is the same as >claiming the contract for one off. > >ton i can only speak from an acbl perspective, but my guess (?) as to the director's ruling would be that if the declarer knew that his comment could possibly damage the opponents, then the director would rule in favor of the opponents, after which the offending side could appeal the ruling. on this particular hand, one would have to know what west had because it may be the case that west's defense was the direct cause of the bad result (although i would tend to doubt this). so had this happened in the acbl, i'd expect a ruling of down 1, followed by an appeal, followed by who knows what. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 03:55:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 03:25:54 +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 DAA04213 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 03:25:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01904 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:25:30 +0100 Received: from ip98.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.98), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda01900; Fri Dec 24 17:25:24 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:25:24 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <1j776sgrdothkqsv06abft62valtf7crgr@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <001501bf4d7c$d4ac2c40$e68c01d5@davidburn> <002101bf4dca$a8853d20$935608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002101bf4dca$a8853d20$935608c3@dodona> 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 DAA04214 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 04:50:35 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ Has anyone counted this thread? 118 messages in this thread received here. And, something of a miracle, they are all threaded correctly: not a single contributor to this thread has made the mistake of breaking the thread by posting with a slightly changed subject line. Merry Christmas! -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 05:19:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 05:19:48 +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 FAA04658 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 05:19:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-71.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.71]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA14006 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:19:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004701bf4e3b$855461c0$4784d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:20:11 -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 To: David Burn ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, December 24, 1999 7:51 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > >Grattan Endicott================================ >"We can be absolutely certain only about >things we do not understand" - Eric Hoffer >:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Burn >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 24 December 1999 08:46 >Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > >> >>except that a footnote might be required to the effect that the word >>"entirely" is not to be interpreted in the Probst sense of "slightly". >> >+=+ That sounds 'slightly' off-key ~ G ~ +=+ Which as we all know is rather like being slightly pregnant-) C ----- Her performance of "God Bless America" brought tears to my eyes. Oh, you are an American then? No, a musician. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 05:32:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 05:32:49 +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 FAA04735 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 05:32:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-71.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.71]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA19871 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:32:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005c01bf4e3d$57192320$4784d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Christmas greetings Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:33:13 -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 May the joy, peace and love of Christmas be with all of you throughout the final year of the 20th century. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Craig Senior ----- Just because it's not the end of the millenium doesn't mean we can't be of good cheer! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 07:12:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 07:12:22 +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 HAA05019 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 07:12:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qth8c.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.197.12]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA19729; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:12:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19991224202246.006cdaec@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:22:46 -0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Cc: discuss@okbridge.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk those interested in appeals committees may wish to consult a new wbf code of conduct for appeals committees, dated from september 1999. it is available at: http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html (at least, that's where i've found it). henry From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 08:06:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 08:06:04 +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 IAA05156 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 08:05:56 +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 QAA19073 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:05:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA12423 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:05:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:05:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912242105.QAA12423@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > There are arguments in this thread > that basically prove that no non-forcing bid can be a convention [eg a > 2D opening showing a weak two in hearts or spades is not a convention]. I haven't seen those arguments, but I have skipped over some of the messages in this thread. On the other hand, I believe that a non-forcing bid *that contains no extraneous information* (e.g. a mandatory transfer completion or puppet response) is not a convention. I don't see that any problem will follow if we rule accordingly. Note the significance difference between these two examples and David's 2D bid above or a 2D response to Stayman or any response to Blackwood. All those can be passed, but they are clearly conventional by any reasonable interpretation (and any interpretation I have seen in this thread). > Treat a > convention as what you believe to be a convention, and do not worry > about it! Yes, this is the practical definition. Taking the literal definition too seriously will not work, as the Lille interpretation told us. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 08:17:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 08:17:23 +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 IAA05196 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 08:17:16 +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 QAA19167 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:17:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA12438 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:17:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:17:20 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912242117.QAA12438@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > While I would be happy with either a fixed-penalty or an equity-based > system of laws, I am not happy with both - or neither - which is in my > view what we have at the moment. Do you (or others) suppose it would be tenable to have a fixed-penalty system for specific infractions (revokes, leads OOT, etc.) but an equity- based system for "extraneous" things like hesitations or other UI? I don't see how a fixed-penalty system can deal with those in any sensible way because a hesitation can mean so many different things, and there are so many other forms UI can take. Illegal deception (L73...F2?? no FLB handy) is in the same category as UI. I guess where I'm going is keep L16A and B, go back to the 1987 version of L16C, simplify and maybe increase the fixed penalties, and keep L72B1. Is that too complex? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 09:19:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 09:19:50 +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 JAA05410 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 09:19:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.16] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 121d3c-000Bgv-00; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:19:32 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bf4e5d$076444c0$105408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2E4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000d01bf4dfd$fa567d20$fd9001d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:17:47 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 10:59 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > What in > > 'your'interpretation is the meaning of 'or specified suits'? That > doesn't > > make much sense anymore, so it seems to me. > --------------- \x/ ---------------------- > > > In your interpretation the > > second is a partial collection of the first > > No, it is not. A bid may relate to more than one suit, and if it > relates to more than one specified suit, then declarer has the rights > conferred by L26A2 in respect of all such suits not specified by the > same player in the later legal auction. > > > as is a bid showing a known and unknown suit. > > A bid showing a known suit and an unknown suit is related to the > specified (known) suit. The fact that it is also related to an unknown > suit does not change the fact that it is related to the known suit. > Probst may sigh all he likes about this, but that is what the words > say. > +=+ I support DB in this reading of the wording of the law. It is one of half a dozen or so (laws) that for the good of the game the WBFLC ought to reconsider and rewrite now - not in 2007. Unfortunately the risk is that the WBFLC will stick in the mud of the 1900's - not enough of the world's lawgivers seem to have caught up with the changed tempo of everything. Whilst reading this thread and during my direct exchange (copied to blml) with John Probst I have gradually formed and consolidated a view that where a withdrawn call showed a shortage in a suit declarer should have the option of requiring or forbidding the lead of that suit. [I know it could not happen, anywhere, anytime, but think of the value in warning partner about the suit in NT, or in getting the ruff in a suit contract.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. My spellchecker keeps urging me that WBFLC should be WAFFLE. Is this a virus? :-))) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 10:55:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 10:07:47 +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 KAA05542 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 10:07:33 +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 121dnq-0008k2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:07:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:42:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <00d801bf4be1$fdfffc80$a6d73ad0@hdavis> <386041E0.B2361026@mindspring.com> <000f01bf4c78$80f09460$509d01d5@davidburn> <3863370A.2AD0A2C7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3863370A.2AD0A2C7@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: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >[snip] > >Enough ranting, David, now let's get back to the original >question : > >1NT - pass - 2Di - 2Sp >2He > >Is 2He conventional in the sense of L27B1a ? Yes. >Does 2He specify hearts in the sense of L26A ? No. Haven't I already answered this? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 11:12:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 11:12:48 +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 LAA05758 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 11:12:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-002.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.194]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA37234 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:11:59 GMT Message-ID: <001701bf4e6d$10e35940$c2307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:14:50 -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'm still confused and I wonder if things will ever get any clearer? David Burns approach seems the common sense approach and the literal approach > A bid may relate to more than one suit, and if it > relates to more than one specified suit, then declarer has the rights > conferred by L26A2 in respect of all such suits not specified by the > same player in the later legal auction. > > A bid showing a known suit and an unknown suit is related to the > specified (known) suit. The fact that it is also related to an unknown > suit does not change the fact that it is related to the known suit. > On the other hand, Ton's approach is simple and practical but I share the concern that this may not be strictly what is written in the laws. Anyway, Happy Christmas to one and all. These discussions on BLML are very helpful and constructive. At least we can be sure that the next version of the laws will be a work of art! Best regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 11:46:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 11:46:06 +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 LAA05836 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 11:45:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.213] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 121fL8-000FJd-00; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:45:46 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01bf4e71$752e41e0$d55408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Henry Sun" Cc: References: <1.5.4.32.19991224202246.006cdaec@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:44:43 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 8:22 PM > those interested in appeals committees may wish to consult a new wbf code > of conduct for appeals committees, dated from september 1999. > > it is available at: > > http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html > > (at least, that's where i've found it). > > henry > +=+ DWS has just rung me to check on the latest adjustments - all cosmetic - and sometime before the Year 2000 he will make them in the copy on his web site ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 11:46:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 11:46:09 +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 LAA05838 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 11:45:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.213] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 121fL5-000FJd-00; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:45:45 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01bf4e71$743ba480$d55408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <199912242117.QAA12438@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:40:55 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 9:17 PM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > ---------------- \x/ ----------------- > > I guess where I'm going is keep L16A and B, go back to the 1987 version > of L16C, simplify and maybe increase the fixed penalties, and keep > L72B1. Is that too complex? > +=+ On balance I consider the 1987 Laws to be a better set than the 1997 Laws. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 11:52:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 10:08:08 +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 KAA05561 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 10:07:54 +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 121do5-000NbH-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:07:34 +0000 Message-ID: <7ZMeRuAr04Y4Ewev@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:11:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Statistics References: <3863441F.834E93CF@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3863441F.834E93CF@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: >Data gathered on 14 december 1999 : > >Number of subsxribers : 261 >7 people seem to want to read everything double, so >Number of readers : 254 Thanks for the hard work, Herman. >Distribution by zone : > >Zone 1 (Europe) 97 (26 countries) > >GB : 30 >DE : 11 >NL : 10 >DK : 7 >BE, FR, IL : 5 >RU : 3 >CH, PL, PT : 2 >AT, CZ, EE, ES, FI, GL, GR, HU, IE, IS, IT, NO, SE, TR, UA : >1 > >Zone 2 (North America) 73 (3 countries) > >US : 60 >CA : 12 >BM : 1 > >Zone 3 (South America) none I appreciate there is a difficulty in splitting all the .com readers, though if it were possible it would be a help. I am pleased to say that we certainly do have a Zone 3 reader now, namely Jorge Pellegrini of Chile. Welcome, Jorge! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 25 11:54:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 11:54:07 +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 LAA05879 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 11:53:59 +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 121fSt-000NHo-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:53:49 +0000 Message-ID: <8cSEDjAK1AZ4Ew2E@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:18:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: last deal's pass 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: >Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >>In a friedly game (using bidding boxes), the following happened: >>Board 22 was passed out. >>On Board 23, amid some polite conversation (very much in line with >>L74A1, though possibly an infraction of L74B1 - but remember, it was a >>friendly game) N found PASS - PASS on the table, passed, and E passed >>also. When everyone was about to return the cards to the board, W >>claimed she had not yet called, and the PASS-card had been left over >>from the last board. >>It was agreed to return the auction to her and just continue, >>but what if it had happened in a serious competition? >>The position is: >> >>S W N E >>P (1) P P (1) left out, last deal's PASS-card on the table >> >>If last deal's PASS is considered irrelevant, applying L17E, even if S >>passed again, W would have another chance to call (very welcome with >>21HCP). >>But maybe it should be argued the W should have removed the PASS in time >>if she did not intend to PASS at this turn. >>And what if E had called the TD, claiming a POOT by N? N might argue it >>was W's fault... > >Making a call when playing with bidding boxes is done by removing the >desired card from the box and placing it on the table. The TD must >therefore find out whether West really didn't call or just pulled >the wrong card. > >I think I believe West in this case; it is a likely story and 21 HCP is >hardly a borderline case for passing. So I rule that West didn't call. >Then North made a pass out of turn, accepted by East. So South is the >next bidder; however, if South passes too, then the last three passes >are cancelled and the auction continues with West (L34). > >And what if East called the TD, you say? That seems extremely unlikely >to me. Wouldn't he have warned his partner that her pass was still >on the table in that case? Perfectly likely. South passes, North passes, West realises and says "Hang on" and East calls the TD. What next? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 25 11:56:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 10:07:45 +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 KAA05539 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 10:07:31 +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 121dnq-000NbH-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:07:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:49:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26 (was.....) References: <005d01bf4dd0$a9f05720$935608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <005d01bf4dd0$a9f05720$935608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >"The great enemy of the truth is often not the lie..... > ....... but the myth" (J.F.K.) >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: >Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 3:51 AM >Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > >> >> >> >> Nope I want to be able to insist on specified suit(s) and prohibit any. >> This gives me a little more power than the current Law 26 gives. But >> it's mildly more PC than the bastinado. >> >+=+ All right. So would you accept or not: > (1) require lead in any suit in which the withdrawn call > has shown a holding > or > (2) prohibit lead of any one suit >in the attempt to retreat from the potential for argument over >'specified'? And do you think it might be desirable to cover >situations where the withdrawn call has indicated a void? I would put "length or strength" instead of "a holding". Certain lawyers will argue that a void is a length of zero but I think we have to leave some interpretation to commonsense. Alternatively put "length" instead of "a holding". Yes, this means something different. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK 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 Dec 25 12:45:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 10:07:46 +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 KAA05540 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 10:07:31 +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 121dnq-0008k3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:07:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:47:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2E4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000d01bf4dfd$fa567d20$fd9001d5@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000d01bf4dfd$fa567d20$fd9001d5@davidburn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Ton Kooijman wrote: > >> What in >> 'your'interpretation is the meaning of 'or specified suits'? That >doesn't >> make much sense anymore, so it seems to me. > >The clause in question in L26 is construed: > >If the call related to a specified suit, or... >...if the call related to two or more specified suits > >A 1S call that shows spades is related to the specified suit: spades. >A 2D opening that shows the majors is related to the two specified >suits: spades and hearts. A Precision 2D opening is (in my opinion) >related to the three specified suits: spades, hearts, and clubs. A >Muiderberg 2S opening is related to the specified suit: spades. The >fact that is is also related to an unspecified suit does not change >the fact that it is related to the spade suit, and thus does not >change the fact that it is "related to a specified suit or suits"... >but I have said all this already. > >> In your interpretation the >> second is a partial collection of the first > >No, it is not. A bid may relate to more than one suit, and if it >relates to more than one specified suit, then declarer has the rights >conferred by L26A2 in respect of all such suits not specified by the >same player in the later legal auction. If your reading is correct then these words are redundant. That is one reason why your reading of them may be incorrect. >> as is a bid showing a known and unknown suit. > >A bid showing a known suit and an unknown suit is related to the >specified (known) suit. The fact that it is also related to an unknown >suit does not change the fact that it is related to the known suit. >Probst may sigh all he likes about this, but that is what the words >say. > >> So the fact that the distinction is there leads to the >> conclusion that it should be read as exactly one suit exclusive or >two >> suits. > >The distinction is there in order to bring two- or three-suited bids >within the same purview as one-suited bids in respect of lead >penalties. You and I, Ton, may not think it right that declarer can >require the lead of a shown suit, but it is the case that he can. If a >player makes a bid that shows spades, declarer can require a spade >lead; it is only logical that if a player makes a bid that shows >majors, declarer can require a spade lead or a heart lead. That is why >the words "or suits" appear. > >Please be aware that I am not unsympathetic to the effects of the >Dutch interpretation. If I could find a way of construing L26 that >supported the interpretation, I would be happy. But DWS has repeatedly >told us that we must rule according to what the words say, and it >appears from his latest message on this thread that I believe this >more strongly than he does. Always want the clever crack to attempt to argue by belittling me, don't you? Your argument is not convincing because it has totally ignored Ton's point about the wording being superfluous if your reading is right, and necessary if the reading of John, myself, and the other EBU TDs is correct. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 12:48:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:48:59 +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 MAA06042 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:48:50 +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 121gJz-000Jw1-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 01:48:40 +0000 Message-ID: <98QOTsBU2BZ4EwEF@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 01:27:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: <199912242117.QAA12438@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199912242117.QAA12438@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "David Burn" >> While I would be happy with either a fixed-penalty or an equity-based >> system of laws, I am not happy with both - or neither - which is in my >> view what we have at the moment. > >Do you (or others) suppose it would be tenable to have a fixed-penalty >system for specific infractions (revokes, leads OOT, etc.) but an equity- >based system for "extraneous" things like hesitations or other UI? I >don't see how a fixed-penalty system can deal with those in any sensible >way because a hesitation can mean so many different things, and there >are so many other forms UI can take. Illegal deception (L73...F2?? no >FLB handy) is in the same category as UI. > >I guess where I'm going is keep L16A and B, go back to the 1987 version >of L16C, simplify and maybe increase the fixed penalties, and keep >L72B1. Is that too complex? I'm sure it's the right direction. A UI problem usually takes me about ten minutes to resolve. A 'rate card' ruling a few seconds only. While I enjoy thinking through equity based rulings I don't have enough time to do it for all the cases that might arise. ... (even with software that prints the appeal form with the hand and players on it) -- 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 Dec 25 12:49:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:49:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06044 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:48:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 121gK2-000GNL-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 01:48:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 01:19:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26 (was.....) In-Reply-To: <005d01bf4dd0$a9f05720$935608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <005d01bf4dd0$a9f05720$935608c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >"The great enemy of the truth is often not the lie..... > ....... but the myth" (J.F.K.) >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: >Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 3:51 AM >Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > >> >> >> >> Nope I want to be able to insist on specified suit(s) and prohibit any. >> This gives me a little more power than the current Law 26 gives. But >> it's mildly more PC than the bastinado. >> >+=+ All right. So would you accept or not: > (1) require lead in any suit in which the withdrawn call > has shown a holding > or > (2) prohibit lead of any one suit >in the attempt to retreat from the potential for argument over >'specified'? And do you think it might be desirable to cover >situations where the withdrawn call has indicated a void? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I think we should include all suits where the specification of length or absence thereof is specified. hence a withdrawn splinter would qualify. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 12:51:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:51:04 +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 MAA06075 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:50:54 +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 121gLv-000OdQ-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 01:50:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 01:49:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: channel juniors In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2E3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> , "Kooijman, A." writes >At the end of Decenber we had our annual meeting between England (Great >Britain, I don't know), France, Belgium and the Netherlandsfor juniors and >young juniors (up to 25 and up to 20(?)). For obvious reasons held somewhere >near the Channel, this time in my country in Zeeland. > >Last match juniors between The Netherlands and England. South picks up Kx x >xx AKQJxxxx and opens 3NT in I don't know which board (let us suppose it was >in first or second bidding seat (board 3 or 2 (mod 4)) West starts with DA >and dummy comes down with AJxxx JTxx QJxx -. Seeing his dummy south starts >smiling and says 'oejoejoei' or something similar. After which he adds: >'well, may be I have an entry'. The player said "Oh well, it's the last board of the tournament." then bid 3N in first seat, which suggested it was not entirely suitable for the action. The Rottweiller (who is in the next room at the moment) comments (he was East) that he knew the players and the fact that they coffee-house. His partner would have defeated it without the coffee housing (but in the Rottweiller's view should have got it right anyway). Since it's the Rottweiller I wouldn't have gone to the table on principle, but otherwise would have adjusted to down 2. HQ, H9 covered and won, D back, another H. Richard and David Gold didn't see any point in calling in the pigs, although they thought the coffee-housing was outrageous.. >West starts thinking and now produces the Q of spades after which declarer >makes 11 tricks. >Given as a fact: it was the last match, the Netherlands were close to being >virtual winners already (popular phrase in my country) and the players were >talking too much. > >Suppose you were called at the table, which didn't happen. Would you do >something? > >West apparently anticipated on the remark, assuming south having HK and >hoping for S KTx in east. >Let us assume that south did not have the intention to mislead his >opponents. After 'oejoejoei' suggesting a wasteless hand he had a poblem. He >couldn't give away his hand by saying he had an entry, that is the same as >claiming the contract for one off. two off. > >ton > the probsts are haunting you ton :)))) -- 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 Dec 25 13:55:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA06116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 13:02:26 +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 NAA06110 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 13:02:16 +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 121gWy-0007Z5-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 02:02:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 02:01:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > > Your argument is not convincing because it has totally ignored Ton's >point about the wording being superfluous if your reading is right, and >necessary if the reading of John, myself, and the other EBU TDs is >correct. > David Burn and I have, over the years, played some wonderful mind/word games such as "all griffons (mythical creatures) have wings" and then elucidated from that universal truths. I can see, with absolute clarity, why David thinks that 26A2 carries the meaning he thinks it does. My own position is founded on ton's point regarding the superfluity of "or suits" in a Burn-ordered world. Anyway David, I'll rule *my way* if you call me to the table during the year end tourney over a withdrawn call. I'll pick Grattan as AC chairman, and let him choose the rest however. :)) Merry Xmas all, I owe a lot to blml, and thank you all. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 14:05:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 14:05:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06323 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 14:05:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 121hW0-000Ii1-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 03:05:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 01:06:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: CoP References: <1.5.4.32.19991224202246.006cdaec@mindspring.com> <000d01bf4e71$752e41e0$d55408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000d01bf4e71$752e41e0$d55408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan EndicottFrom: Henry Sun >> those interested in appeals committees may wish to consult a new wbf code >> of conduct for appeals committees, dated from september 1999. >> >> it is available at: >> >> http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html >> >> (at least, that's where i've found it). >+=+ DWS has just rung me to check on the latest > adjustments - all cosmetic - and sometime > before the Year 2000 he will make them in > the copy on his web site ~ G ~ +=+ ... and, before you wonder whether the changes will appear on the Swiss site, I have just checked the reference, and it is solely a link to my site! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_cop.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 20:01:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 20:01:07 +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 UAA07249 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 20:00:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.117] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 121n4C-000MaV-00; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 09:00:49 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01bf4eb6$9d8ad8c0$755408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 08:58:06 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, December 25, 1999 2:01 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > In article , David Stevenson > writes > > snip > > > > Your argument is not convincing because it has totally ignored Ton's > >point about the wording being superfluous if your reading is right, and > >necessary if the reading of John, myself, and the other EBU TDs is > >correct. > > > David Burn and I have, over the years, played some wonderful mind/word > games such as "all griffons (mythical creatures) have wings" and then > elucidated from that universal truths. I can see, with absolute > clarity, why David thinks that 26A2 carries the meaning he thinks it > does. My own position is founded on ton's point regarding the > superfluity of "or suits" in a Burn-ordered world. > +=+ I am not clear what this point is. The wording allows that there may be one specified suit or more than one. It does not rule out the possibility of its being also related to one or more unspecified suits. A call could show both majors and one minor; it could show Spades and three cards at least in two other suits. That is, so far as the language goes; I believe the aim certainly was to restrict A to calls that related only to specified suits, but if I am right why did 'we' not insert the word 'only'; the language is imprecise.+=+ > >Anyway David, I'll > rule *my way* if you call me to the table during the year end tourney > over a withdrawn call. I'll pick Grattan as AC chairman, and let him > choose the rest however. :)) > > Merry Xmas all, I owe a lot to blml, and thank you all. cheers john > -- +=+ Don't tell me you will both be at the Blackpool venue rather than in London. I am going there as appeals chairman in order to avoid having to cope with rough Southern ways. And may I gently join in the round of goodwill. "A Merry Christmas to One and All". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 20:42:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 20:42:27 +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 UAA07346 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 20:42:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.174] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 121niG-000NJd-00; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 09:42:12 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01bf4ebc$65bbfc20$ec5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 09:41:41 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, December 25, 1999 2:01 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? > > > > "all griffons (mythical creatures) have wings" =+=== griffons without wings are not mythical creatures ===+= > > I'll pick Grattan as AC chairman, and let him > choose the rest however. :)) > ((-: Herman and Bob Rowlands. Don't wait up for us. :-))) ~ G ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 25 21:30:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 21:30:15 +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 VAA07456 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 21:30:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.6.23.215] (helo=davidburn) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 121oST-0001gd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 10:29:57 +0000 Message-ID: <003301bf4ec3$13953cc0$d717063e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C2E4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><000d01bf4dfd$fa567d20$fd9001d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 10:30:33 -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 DWS wrote: [snip] "If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits..." > If your reading is correct then these words are redundant. I think this means, as Ton also suggested, that the words "or suits" are redundant under my interpretation but support an alternative. Words which appear for the purposes of clarification sometimes are redundant. These words appear in L26A2: "...declarer may (penalty) either require the offender's partner to lead the specified suit (or one particular specified suit)... or prohibit..." and the words "or suits" in the preamble are there to make it clear that a call may relate to more than one specified suit, so that declarer has "require or prohibit" rights over more than one suit. They are there, in short, to forestall the bridge lawyer who says, "My 2D call related to spades and hearts, so it did not relate to *a* specified suit but to more than one, so L26A does not apply". This is so completely obvious that it really should not require pointing out; to base an alternative interpretation on words that appear for the purpose of making the law easier to understand and to administer, but do not change its essential meaning, is sheer casuistry. > That is > one reason why your reading of them may be incorrect. If a sentence contains redundant words, but the words that are not redundant admit of only one interpretation, then it is not "incorrect" to interpret the sentence without regard to the redundant words. > Always want the clever crack to attempt to argue by belittling me, > don't you? I have not the slightest idea what this sentence means. To say that your argument is wrong in this particular case is not to belittle you as an individual. Nor have I the least desire to do this. I merely point out that since you have in the past insisted (correctly) that our task is to rule in accordance with the words in the book, your apparent readiness in this case to ignore the obvious meaning of simple English words is not consistent. > Your argument is not convincing because it has totally ignored Ton's > point about the wording being superfluous if your reading is right, and > necessary if the reading of John, myself, and the other EBU TDs is > correct. The words are not superfluous - they are helpful, but they do not change the sense of the law. They are not "necessary if the reading of ... other TDs is correct"; your reading would be correct if and only if the words "related to a specified suit" meant "related only to a specified suit and not to any unspecified suit". But they do not mean this; they cannot mean this; and the addition of the words "or suits" (which, as Grattan has pointed out, was done for the purpose I have described) cannot alter the fact that the words "related to a specified suit" in the law simply *do not mean* what you and Ton want them to mean. This was an error; it should be rectified; but to deny that it is a mistake in order to sustain an untenable position is not constructive. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 26 01:09:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 01:09:18 +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 BAA07973 for ; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 01:09:08 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 3053 invoked from network); 25 Dec 1999 13:47:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.146.172) by jaguars with SMTP; 25 Dec 1999 13:47:12 -0000 Message-ID: <3864D025.840055E5@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 14:09:42 +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@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Christmas greetings References: <005c01bf4e3d$57192320$4784d9ce@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > May the joy, peace and love of Christmas be with all of you throughout the > final year of the 20th century. > > Merry Christmas and Happy New Year > > Craig Senior > > ----- > > Just because it's not the end of the millenium doesn't mean we can't be of > good cheer! DOUBLE lnb From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 26 06:15:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA09179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 06:15:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f251.hotmail.com [216.32.181.251]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA09174 for ; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 06:14:57 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 19950 invoked by uid 0); 25 Dec 1999 19:14:06 -0000 Message-ID: <19991225191406.19949.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.198.213.3 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 11:14:06 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.198.213.3] From: "jorge pellegrini" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Statistics Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 16:14:06 CLST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you David to make notice my presence in this studios select group of the laws ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 26 06:45:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA09257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 06:45:33 +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 GAA09252 for ; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 06:45:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04771 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 1999 20:45:14 +0100 Received: from ip71.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk(195.249.193.71), claiming to be "jd-private.internal" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda04769; Sat Dec 25 20:45:09 1999 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 20:45:09 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <199912242117.QAA12438@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199912242117.QAA12438@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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 GAA09253 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 16:17:20 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >I guess where I'm going is keep L16A and B, go back to the 1987 version >of L16C, simplify and maybe increase the fixed penalties, and keep >L72B1. That sounds like a very good idea. The question of L16C2 is of course essential to the fixed penalty laws: if the current L16C2 is kept, many fixed penalties should be decreased or removed, but if L16C2 is changed back to the 1987 version, the fixed penalties should be kept (and IMO simplified, even if they are thereby increased). This means that a lasting decision about L16C2 should preferably be taken before the fixed penalty laws are changed much in either direction: it is still possible to change back to the old L16C2 with only minor changes to the fixed penalties, because most of those fixed penalties were designed to work with the 1987 (or even earlier) laws. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 26 23:27:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA12116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 23:27:54 +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 XAA12111 for ; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 23:27:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-19.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.19]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA27633; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 13:27:34 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 13:25:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> Ton Kooijman wrote: >> >> > What in >> > 'your'interpretation is the meaning of 'or specified suits'? That >> doesn't >> > make much sense anymore, so it seems to me. >> >--------------- \x/ ---------------------- >> >> > In your interpretation the >> > second is a partial collection of the first >> >> No, it is not. yes, it is. (that reminds me of a famous English/American song, and normal family discussions). I am telling that the first sentence of 26A should be read as JUST ONE specified suit or JUST specified suits. Though I realise that this is not the normal way of reading it, it is not that extreme that you couldn't try (and remember). If you read it as AT LEAST a specified suit (which is what you do) then all calls with two or more specified suits, all calls with one specified suit and not specified suits (and OK Grattan, all calls with 2 specified suits and one unspecified suit; do you know one?) belong to the group ' AT LEAST' a specified suit. Reading your impressive expose about exclusive or's etc. I expected you (David Burn) to understand this. This is not a proof for my interpretation but it supports it slightly (sorry David B., I couldn't resist). Let me try it in another way. More convincing I hope. Law 26 makes it impossible for a call to be treated by using 26A and 26B at the same time. You have to make your choice, it is either A(call related to at least a specified suit) or exclusive B (call not related to at least a specified suit). Given that 2S shows spades and a minor brings me in 26A (given your interpretation) and so never in 26B. If spades are specified before or later 26A tells us there is no penalty anymore (given your interpretation). If the ACBL, as I understand, with this 2S withdrawn uses either A (when the unknown suit was specified later; how? by calling the other minor?) or B (when spades or nothing was specified) they infringe the laws. There is no possible interpretation of the laws to support that approach. This brings me once more to the conclusion that (my) interpretation as given before is the (only) sensible one. >+=+ I support DB in this reading of the wording of the law. It is one >of half a dozen or so (laws) that for the good of the game the WBFLC >ought to reconsider and rewrite now - not in 2007. Unfortunately the >risk is that the WBFLC will stick in the mud of the 1900's - not >enough of the world's lawgivers seem to have caught up with the >changed tempo of everything. Poor Grattan, with all those oldies on his back. You sound somewhat demagogic, but you are welcome to it. > >p.s. My spellchecker keeps urging me that WBFLC should be > WAFFLE. Is this a virus? :-))) > Can you make your spellchecker subscriber of BLML? ton From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 26 23:45:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA12182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 23:45:24 +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 XAA12177 for ; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 23:45:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-38.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.38]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA05200; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 13:45:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004f01bf4f9e$c0246160$13b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: channel juniors Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 13:42:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Let us assume that south did not have the intention to mislead his >>opponents. After 'oejoejoei' suggesting a wasteless hand he had a poblem. He >>couldn't give away his hand by saying he had an entry, that is the same as >>claiming the contract for one off. >two off. >> >>ton >> >the probsts are haunting you ton :)))) I am quite convinced that it was not his intention to mislead his opponents, though he succeeded. It being an English junior I would have thought the same (but it doesn't happen there, does it?) It was a wrong chosen attempt to neutralize his 'oejoejoei'. Given the way this match was played (we say coffee-house (not the same as coffeeshop) bridge), I wouldn't have adjusted the score. But I would have given this Dutch junior (and therewith his team) a severe penalty in VP's. Those are supposed to represent my country and he might try for the open team in a couple of years. Strike them discipline. ton >-- >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 Dec 27 03:46:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 03:46:09 +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 DAA13113 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 03:45:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.61.220] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 122GnV-0001cL-00; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 16:45:33 +0000 Message-ID: <000701bf4fc0$ba629040$dc3dac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "ton kooijman" , References: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 16:46:14 -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 Ton Kooijman wrote: > yes, it is. (that reminds me of a famous English/American song, and normal > family discussions). But family discussions do not follow the Laws, for "normal" includes not only the careless or inferior, but also the irrational. At least, if this Christmas is anything to go by, it does. > I am telling that the first sentence of 26A should be > read as JUST ONE specified suit or JUST specified suits. Yes, I realise that :) As Grattan says, if the word "only" were included between "related" and "to" in 26A, then there would not be any problem. But it isn't, so there is. > Though I realise > that this is not the normal way of reading it, it is not that extreme that > you couldn't try (and remember). Oh, I doubt that I will ever forget! > If you read it as AT LEAST a specified suit > (which is what you do) then all calls with two or more specified suits, all > calls with one specified suit and not specified suits (and OK Grattan, all > calls with 2 specified suits and one unspecified suit; do you know one?) Not offhand, but many British experts use a 2H opening to show a three-suited hand with four (specified) hearts and two other (unspecified) four-card suits. This bid is, lest anyone should have lost the plot by now, related to the specified suit of hearts for the purposes of L26. > belong to the group ' AT LEAST' a specified suit. Reading your impressive > expose about exclusive or's etc. I expected you (David Burn) to understand > this. I understand the use of both the inclusive and the exclusive "or". In English, most "ors" are inclusive; the one in 26A is a case in point. If a call relates to at least one specified suit, then it is to be treated under 26A whatever else it relates to (or "to whatever else it relates", as our most famous Prime Minister would not have said). > This is not a proof for my interpretation but it supports it slightly (sorry > David B., I couldn't resist). Not at all; I am pleased that the idiom is gaining currency. What we lose in precision, we gain in charm. > Let me try it in another way. More convincing I hope. > Law 26 makes it impossible for a call to be treated by using 26A and 26B at > the same time. You have to make your choice, it is either A (call related to > at least a specified suit) or exclusive B (call not related to at least a > specified suit). I agree with all of this; you cannot use 26A and 26B simultaneously. > Given that 2S shows spades and a minor brings me in 26A > (given your interpretation) and so never in 26B. Quite so. > If spades are specified > before or later 26A tells us there is no penalty anymore (given your > interpretation). Here there may at first sight be a difficulty; fortunately, the Laws have anticipated this. If the bidding proceeds like this: S W N E (2S) 2NT P 3C 3S P P 3NT End where 2S showed spades and a minor but was out of turn, South has later specified spades in the legal auction, so (following 26A) there should be no lead penalty. Indeed, North can lead a spade if he likes; West may not forbid this, which is equitable enough. Under the TK Interpretation, however, West can use 26B to prevent North from leading a spade, which is not equitable (and which I am sure was never intended). But we do not want North to use the information that South has a minor, and (deducing from the auction that the opponents are well stocked in spades) to gain by leading a minor if he has a logical alternative (for example, a spade). That is why there is a reference at the end of L26A1 to L16C; if North does indeed lead South's minor successfully, then his result may be adjusted under L16. If the auction were instead: S W N E (2S) 2NT P 3C Dble P P 3NT End where South has doubled Stayman to show (specify) clubs, then under 26A there is no lead penalty and North can lead a club equitably enough; if he leads a spade instead, L16 will come into play. But under 26B West could forbid a club, which again is not equitable. This is, in my opinion, a very strong argument for the use of 26A and not 26B to deal with calls relating to a mixture of specified and unspecified suits. > If the ACBL, as I understand, with this 2S withdrawn uses > either A (when the unknown suit was specified later; how? by calling the > other minor?) or B (when spades or nothing was specified) they infringe the > laws. There is no possible interpretation of the laws to support that > approach. Quite so, but I am not sure that this is what the ACBL actually does. Essentially, 26A provides that a player may lead a suit legally shown by his partner even if the suit was earlier illegally shown. This is, to my way of thinking, right and proper. It also provides that a player may be forbidden to lead a suit illegally shown and not later legally shown, which is also right and proper. In addition, it provides that declarer may require the lead of a suit illegally shown - this, in my view and Ton's, is neither right nor proper, but it is the Law. > This brings me once more to the conclusion that (my) interpretation as given > before is the (only) sensible one. Funny you should say that... David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 27 10:12:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 10:12:46 +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 KAA14277 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 10:12:37 +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 SAA15928 for ; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 18:12:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA14103 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 18:12:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 18:12:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912262312.SAA14103@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > This means that a lasting decision about L16C2 should preferably > be taken before the fixed penalty laws are changed much This is, of course, the key issue. It might be ideal to poll all bridge players to see whether there is a consensus, but that doesn't seem possible. No matter how it is made, I don't see any single decision that will have as wide an effect on how the game is played. If the LC wants a _lasting_ decision, it may take some effort to build an advance understanding within the various NCBO's for the direction being taken. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 27 13:27:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:27:26 +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 NAA14732 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:27:17 +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 122PsH-0008wE-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 02:27:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 02:25:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) In-Reply-To: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman>, ton kooijman writes >>> >>> > In your interpretation the >>> > second is a partial collection of the first >>> >>> No, it is not. > >yes, it is. O yes it is. > >This brings me once more to the conclusion that (my) interpretation as given >before is the (only) sensible one. > I concur. There is obvious redundancy if the Law is read in a Burn- oriented space-time. There is no redundancy if the Law is read in a Kooyman universe, even if it needs a sigh because of the lousy drafting. In either universe we can construct situations which are not equitable. Nonetheless I do support the Endicott movement in regard to a Law change where one can insist on any suits specified, or bar the lead of any suit. Examples: 1H 2N overcall. Insist on C or D. Preclude anything. 1H 4C splinter. Insist on C or H. All subject to the suits not having been later specified. Thus we could cue the C shortage and bid the slam and avoid the penalties. I further think that suit length held is not relevant, but the definition of a *specific* suit (or suits). Hence I'd include splinters. I think if one can get a suit into the auction later then that suit should be exempt from such penalties. ie 1H 2N overcall, later bidding Clubs would exempt C from the penalty provision entirely. The reason I'd prefer this route is that it becomes a 'rate-card' ruling and questions of UI should not enter into it. The error captures its own penalty and the penalty is mechanical. I find the analogy of the LOOT interesting, as I personally speaking have a problem with the UI aspect of the taken-up card. I feel that that should be AI, but everything else should be UI. Does this thread merit a re-raise of the LOOT problem? cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 27 13:27:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:27:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14731 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:27:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 122PsG-00086P-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 02:27:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 02:01:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: channel juniors In-Reply-To: <004f01bf4f9e$c0246160$13b5f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <004f01bf4f9e$c0246160$13b5f1c3@kooijman>, ton kooijman writes >>Let us assume that south did not have the intention to mislead his >>>opponents. After 'oejoejoei' suggesting a wasteless hand he had a poblem. >He >>>couldn't give away his hand by saying he had an entry, that is the same as >>>claiming the contract for one off. >>two off. >>> >>>ton >>> >>the probsts are haunting you ton :)))) > >I am quite convinced that it was not his intention to mislead his opponents, >though he succeeded. I have absolutely no doubt of this. He was not attempting to mislead his opponents. >It being an English junior I would have thought the >same (but it doesn't happen there, does it?) Exactly the same thing happens. I've nailed the Rottweiller more than once in the club game for such sort of jocularity, and he has the good grace to accept it. He also does it in the trials, and then the other TD present nails him instead. >It was a wrong chosen attempt >to neutralize his 'oejoejoei'. Given the way this match was played (we say >coffee-house (not the same as coffeeshop) bridge), Coffee-housing is part of the game among the usual suspects at the Young Chelsea. Coffee shop bridge is presumably where you play a few hands in each pub until the tournament is over. We call that cafe bridge, but it doesn't happen much here (I know of an event in Cardiff, but that's it). But that all being said, the ramark *did* mislead and the player *could have known*. I adjust for that reason. >I wouldn't have adjusted >the score. But I would have given this Dutch junior (and therewith his team) >a severe penalty in VP's. Those are supposed to represent my country and he >might try for the open team in a couple of years. Strike them discipline. As a TD I have no problem with people who enjoy their bridge, and who as a result, from time to time, overstep the limits of the Laws unintentionally. I always adjust, and usually award a PP too. It's all part of the game. Richard has a very high regard for the players concerned, and it sounds as both he and they should play a bit more quietly :)) Regards 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 Dec 27 13:30:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:30:29 +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 NAA14763 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:30:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.100] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 122PvF-000J2i-00; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 02:30:09 +0000 Message-ID: <002501bf5012$60831520$645608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "ton kooijman" , References: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman> <000701bf4fc0$ba629040$dc3dac3e@davidburn> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 02:29:04 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ton kooijman ; Sent: Sunday, December 26, 1999 4:46 PM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) > > I understand the use of both the inclusive and the exclusive "or". In > English, most "ors" are inclusive; the one in 26A is a case in point. > If a call relates to at least one specified suit, then it is to be > treated under 26A whatever else it relates to (or "to whatever else it > relates", as our most famous Prime Minister would not have said). > +=+ Hey, steady on! 'most famous 20thC Prime Minister', maybe. Otherwise, for their several reasons, Disraeli, two William Pitts and the first Duke of Wellington would each have a claim. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 27 13:30:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:30:34 +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 NAA14764 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:30:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.100] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 122PvB-000J2i-00; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 02:30:06 +0000 Message-ID: <002301bf5012$5e9c53c0$645608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , References: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 01:50:45 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Sent: Sunday, December 26, 1999 12:25 PM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) > > > > >> Ton Kooijman wrote: > I am telling that the first sentence of 26A should be > read as JUST ONE specified suit or JUST specified suits. > +=+ I think you mean that you are 'saying' this; 'telling' would imply that you are giving an instruction, whereas each of us is merely expressing a personal opinion as to how the law should be interpreted (in which respect my view as to the intention co-incides with yours, ton, I believe) and for an official interpretation we have to go to the committee. As to the English language, this law is *not* expressed in a fashion to coincide with what you desire it to mean. This, of course, is a separate issue from interpretation of the law. +=+ >Though I realise > that this is not the normal way of reading it, it is not that extreme that > you couldn't try (and remember). If you read it as AT LEAST a specified suit > (which is what you do) then all calls with two or more specified suits, all > calls with one specified suit and not specified suits (and OK Grattan, all > calls with 2 specified suits and one unspecified suit; do you know one?) > +=+ Yes. +=+ > -------- \x/ -------- > > Poor Grattan, with all those oldies on his back. You sound somewhat > demagogic, but you are welcome to it. > +=+ Demagogue: 1. A leader who espouses the cause of the common people. 2. An orator who appeals to popular desires or prejudices to further personal interests. 3. A rabble rouser. Which did you have in mind? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 27 13:56:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:43:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14807 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:43:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 122Q8F-0008UD-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 02:43:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 02:35:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? References: <199912262312.SAA14103@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199912262312.SAA14103@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> This means that a lasting decision about L16C2 should preferably >> be taken before the fixed penalty laws are changed much > >This is, of course, the key issue. It might be ideal to poll all bridge >players to see whether there is a consensus, but that doesn't seem >possible. No matter how it is made, I don't see any single decision >that will have as wide an effect on how the game is played. If the LC >wants a _lasting_ decision, it may take some effort to build an advance >understanding within the various NCBO's for the direction being taken. Poll bridge **players**? Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really, Steve, they are not the ones who understand the effects of the Laws! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 27 13:59:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:59:42 +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 NAA14865 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:59:34 +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 122QNX-0003f4-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 02:59:23 +0000 Message-ID: <68eO42CkTtZ4Ewka@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 02:54:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) References: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman> <002301bf5012$5e9c53c0$645608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002301bf5012$5e9c53c0$645608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: ton kooijman >> >> Ton Kooijman wrote: >> I am telling that the first sentence of 26A should be >> read as JUST ONE specified suit or JUST specified suits. >+=+ I think you mean that you are 'saying' this; 'telling' would >imply that you are giving an instruction, whereas each of us is >merely expressing a personal opinion as to how the law should >be interpreted (in which respect my view as to the intention >co-incides with yours, ton, I believe) and for an official >interpretation we have to go to the committee. > As to the English language, this law is *not* expressed >in a fashion to coincide with what you desire it to mean. This, >of course, is a separate issue from interpretation of the law. +=+ It is close enough. >> Poor Grattan, with all those oldies on his back. You sound somewhat >> demagogic, but you are welcome to it. >> >+=+ Demagogue: >1. A leader who espouses the cause of the common people. >2. An orator who appeals to popular desires or prejudices > to further personal interests. >3. A rabble rouser. >Which did you have in mind? #3, of course! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 27 20:03:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:03:21 +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 UAA15441 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:03:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.99.56.72] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 122W3T-0007Zi-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:03:03 +0000 Message-ID: <001501bf5049$46927020$483863c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman><002301bf5012$5e9c53c0$645608c3@dodona> <68eO42CkTtZ4Ewka@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:03:42 -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 Stevenson wrote: > As to the English language, this law is *not* expressed > in a fashion to coincide with what you desire it to mean. This, > of course, is a separate issue from interpretation of the law. +=+ > > It is close enough. This trend must cease; it is bad enough having to re-interpret the word "entirely" to mean "scarcely at all", but if the phrase "close enough" is now to mean "not remotely approaching", communication will soon become impossible. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 27 20:04:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:04:55 +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 UAA15464 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:04:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.99.56.72] (helo=davidburn) by tantalum.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 122W50-0000Da-00; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:04:39 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01bf5049$7f926b00$483863c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <199912262312.SAA14103@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:05:17 -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 Stevenson wrote: > Poll bridge **players**? > > Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Really, Steve, they are not the ones who understand the effects of the > Laws! And if that is not the most shocking indictment of the Laws and the lawyers, I do not know what is. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 27 20:23:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:23:19 +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 UAA15581 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:23:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.99.56.72] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 122WMq-0002jA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:23:05 +0000 Message-ID: <002101bf504c$126c7ea0$483863c3@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:23:42 -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 John Probst wrote: > I concur. There is obvious redundancy if the Law is read in a Burn- > oriented space-time. There is no redundancy if the Law is read in a > Kooyman universe, even if it needs a sigh because of the lousy drafting. I really have no idea whence this "redundancy" argument sprang; it certainly has no basis in the wording of the Law. The words "or suits" are as redundant under Ton's interpretation as under mine; if they did not appear, it would still be possible to argue that "If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit" meant "If the withdrawn call related only to a specified suit". It would not be possible to argue this successfully, for the English language does not support this meaning. The purpose of the words "or suits", as I have explained, quite obvious. They are there to make it explicit that: Calls relating to one specified suit are to be treated under L26A; and Calls relating to more than one specified suit are also to be treated under L26A. But they do not in any way carry an implication that calls relating only to specified suits are to be treated under L26A while others are to be treated under L26B. They have no effect at all on the treatment of calls relating to a mixture of specified and unspecified suits. Because such calls are not explicitly treated by L26, a call must be examined to see whether it related to a specified suit. If so, then whatever else it did, it must be treated under L26A. Not to do so leads to this obvious absurdity: if a player shows spades and a minor illegally, and later shows spades legally, his partner can be forbidden from leading any suit including spades. Will John, or Ton, or David, or anyone else please explain to me why this is sensible, as it is a direct consequence of your interpretation of the Law? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 27 22:55:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:55:28 +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 WAA15978 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:55:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.98] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 122Yk3-0000dN-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:55:12 +0000 Message-ID: <008201bf5061$50866ce0$775408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <002101bf504c$126c7ea0$483863c3@davidburn> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:54:02 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 9:23 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) --------- \x/ --------- > > I really have no idea whence this "redundancy" argument sprang; it > certainly has no basis in the wording of the Law. The words "or suits" > are as redundant under Ton's interpretation as under mine; if they did > not appear, it would still be possible to argue that "If the withdrawn > call related to a specified suit" meant "If the withdrawn call related > only to a specified suit". It would not be possible to argue this > successfully, for the English language does not support this meaning. > -------- \x/ -------- > > Calls relating to one specified suit are to be treated under L26A; and > Calls relating to more than one specified suit are also to be treated > under L26A. > >no effect at all on the treatment > of calls relating to a mixture of specified and unspecified suits. > Because such calls are not explicitly treated by L26, a call must be > examined to see whether it related to a specified suit. If so, then > whatever else it did, it must be treated under L26A. Not to do so > leads to this obvious absurdity: if a player shows spades and a minor > illegally, and later shows spades legally, his partner can be > forbidden from leading any suit including spades. Will John, or Ton, > or David, or anyone else please explain to me why this is sensible, as > it is a direct consequence of your interpretation of the Law? > +=+ If the English language is properly understood your reading of it is incontrovertibly correct. I do not believe these eminent persons can be misled as to the meaning of the language. I believe they want to interpret the current language according to what they believe was intended when the law was written. You are now in the position that I have encountered in the past; what you say falls on wilfully deaf ears and there is little advantage in blowing wisdom into the wind. (It is usually Kojak who makes this point.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 27 22:56:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:14:04 +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 WAA15883 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:13:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.119] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 122Y5v-000Pfb-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:13:44 +0000 Message-ID: <006601bf505b$859f0320$775408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Code of practice (Bermuda regulation). Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:13:53 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:13:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.119] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 122Y5u-000Pfb-00; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:13:42 +0000 Message-ID: <006501bf505b$84b406e0$775408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <003a01bf4f9c$4cc785a0$13b5f1c3@kooijman><002301bf5012$5e9c53c0$645608c3@dodona> <68eO42CkTtZ4Ewka@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:08:00 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 2:54 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >From: ton kooijman > > >> >> Ton Kooijman wrote: > >> I am telling that the first sentence of 26A should be > >> read as JUST ONE specified suit or JUST specified suits. > > >+=+ I think you mean that you are 'saying' this; 'telling' would > >imply that you are giving an instruction, whereas each of us is > >merely expressing a personal opinion as to how the law should > >be interpreted (in which respect my view as to the intention > >co-incides with yours, ton, I believe) and for an official > >interpretation we have to go to the committee. > > As to the English language, this law is *not* expressed > >in a fashion to coincide with what you desire it to mean. This, > >of course, is a separate issue from interpretation of the law. +=+ > > It is close enough. > +=+ So long as we are proposing that this law be interpreted according to the intention of the WBFLC at the time it was drafted, so that an implied 'only' is inserted to make it read: "related (only) to a specified suit or suits" I can go along with that, and have not said otherwise. What is true is that the language of the law in this respect is faulty if that is its agreed intention, and no amount of specious discussion alters the fact. If this is what the WBFLC wants then we should insert the '(only)' in the law. I would regard it as a more resolute solution if the committee would gather up its skirts and run with words along these lines: "When an offender's call is withdrawn and he chooses a different call for that turn but the information in the withdrawn call has been conveyed by the same player in the legal auction there is no lead penalty, but see Law 16C. Otherwise, when an offending player's call is withdrawn and he chooses a different call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender, the declarer at the offender's partner's first turn to lead may require the offender's partner to lead a suit specified by the withdrawn call (including any suit in which a shortage was indicated) or may prohibit the offender's partner from leading any one suit, such prohibition to continue for as long as the offender's partner retains the lead. ( Declarer selects his option when the offender's partner first has the lead. A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be deemed a different call)." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 28 06:40:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 06:40:58 +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 GAA17485 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 06:40:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-89.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.89]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA15451; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:40:36 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006201bf50a1$f3850100$b0b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:38:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> >> I really have no idea whence this "redundancy" argument sprang; it >> certainly has no basis in the wording of the Law. The words "or suits" >> are as redundant under Ton's interpretation as under mine; if they did >> not appear, it would still be possible to argue that "If the withdrawn >> call related to a specified suit" meant "If the withdrawn call related >> only to a specified suit". It would not be possible to argue this >> successfully, for the English language does not support this meaning. >> >-------- \x/ -------- >> >> Calls relating to one specified suit are to be treated under L26A; and >> Calls relating to more than one specified suit are also to be treated >> under L26A. >> >>no effect at all on the treatment >> of calls relating to a mixture of specified and unspecified suits. >> Because such calls are not explicitly treated by L26, a call must be >> examined to see whether it related to a specified suit. If so, then >> whatever else it did, it must be treated under L26A. Not to do so >> leads to this obvious absurdity: if a player shows spades and a minor >> illegally, and later shows spades legally, his partner can be >> forbidden from leading any suit including spades. Will John, or Ton, >> or David, or anyone else please explain to me why this is sensible, as >> it is a direct consequence of your interpretation of the Law? Let me start to answer Grattan's remarks below, which are not fair. I have agreed several times during the last days that your interpretation is the one an Englishman can't avoid to make. So there are either deaf ears or selective blind eyes (logically spoken not necessarily an exclusive 'or') When I show an unknown suit and have to withdraw that call, not showing it in another way, opponent declarer may forbid my partner from leading any suit. When I show spades and an unknown suit, in a withdrawn call, and show the spades in another way, reading law 26A there is no lead penalty at all anymore. That is an absurdity also. And if there are grades of absurdities, this one is bigger in my opinion. (I know that we can use 16 then, but it was never meant for that). May I call this dicussion to an end? 26 needs a clarification, which I concluded long before X-mas, when I still had all my senses. ton >> >+=+ If the English language is properly understood your reading of it >is incontrovertibly correct. I do not believe these eminent persons >can be misled as to the meaning of the language. I believe they want >to interpret the current language according to what they believe was >intended when the law was written. You are now in the position >that I have encountered in the past; what you say falls on wilfully >deaf ears and there is little advantage in blowing wisdom into the >wind. (It is usually Kojak who makes this point.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 28 07:24:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 07:24:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17608 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 07:24:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-022.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.214]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA20811 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:23:33 GMT Message-ID: <000701bf50a8$a69d07a0$d6307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:26:21 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton wrote: >May I call this dicussion to an end? 26 needs a clarification, which I >concluded long before X-mas, when I still had all my senses. ton Here! Here! Regards, Fearghal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 28 09:01:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:01:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17917 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:00:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-240.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.240]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA15529 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:00:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006401bf50b5$f345be00$f084d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:01:36 -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 Ton wrote: >> No, it is not. > >yes, it is. (that reminds me of a famous English/American song, The only one that comes to mind is "Anything Yoiu Can Do (I Can Do Better) from the 40s musical "Annie Get Your Gun). I recall it being sung by Ethel Merman and John Raitt in the Broadway production. Is that what you had in mind? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 28 11:56:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:39:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18489 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:39:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from cuda.jcu.edu.au (cuda.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.28]) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA08972 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:39:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mosaic@localhost) by cuda.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06998; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:39:08 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:39:08 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199912280039.KAA06998@cuda.jcu.edu.au> X-Authentication-Warning: cuda.jcu.edu.au: mosaic set sender to sci-lsk@jcu.edu.au using -f From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Reply-To: Laurie Kelso References: <199912262312.SAA14103@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.10 X-Originating-IP: 202.80.71.103 Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quoting David Stevenson : > Poll bridge **players**? > > Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!! > > Really, Steve, they are not the ones who understand > the effects of the Laws! While this is probably quite true - it is undoubtably also quite sad! Laurie (Australia) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 28 12:56:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:40:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18534 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:40:35 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id c.0.e6e49fdd (3311); Mon, 27 Dec 1999 19:38:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.e6e49fdd.2599608e@aol.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 19:38:38 EST Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, Hermes@dodona.clara.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 12/27/99 2:46:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > When I show spades and an unknown suit, in a withdrawn call, and show the > spades in another way, reading law 26A there is no lead penalty at all > anymore. That is an absurdity also. And if there are grades of absurdities, > this one is bigger in my opinion. (I know that we can use 16 then, but it > was never meant for that). Absurd in your opinion, not in mine.. Having studiously avoided getting into this thread, but amazed and chagrined at what I read, I've got to sound off. The purpose of the Laws is to rectify those inadvertent irregularities that occur during the playing of the game. If you want penalties, go to the school of those who think that is what the Laws are for. BUT!!!!! Read the Scope of the Laws. Read the Laws in consonance with the Scope. Or, start your own game of BRITCH, with your personal interpretation of the Laws.. Law 26: when your partner has information that he obtained legally there is no penalty. When your partner has information that he got illegally, then the other side needs protection against strange leads and plays. That's ALL that Law 26 is about! Part A1. -- NO penalty, partner got the information legally. Part A2. -- Parter got the information illegally, and here is where you try to establish a rectification.How do you rectify? By putting choices on those situations where the partner of the bad guy got information he shouldn't have. Part B. The information doesn't exist, so there's no help for the non-offender, but we'll try to give the good guys a bit of a help, since there is some overall information about strength, willingness to bid, etc., that doesn't relate to a strain (you like that better than "suit?") and might be relevant to the result. That's what the Law is all about. Now, please believe me that I thoroughly enjoy the esoteric dissection of the English language, the explanation of what English means by those to whom it is at best a second language, along with the savants in our native tongue, and the posing of how can we let this happen? But, to me, of greater importance, is the communication of what the Law is trying to do within the ENTIRE framework of the Law, and when we find the English lacking in it's expression of that idea, maybe we should use Sanskrit, or even Dutch. BUT, ABOVE ALL, WE SHOULD REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THE GAME IN TRYING TO GET IT BACK TO NORMAL WHEN INADVERENT DEPARTURES OCCUR. You want to beat up on cheats? Get on my bandwagon! I've been after them for years with some success, and those I haven't yet caught know who they are and believe me, they are on schedule! After this tirade, I agree that the Laws should be "recitifed" to clearly, In English, indicate what they mean without having to get into the spirit of things, but if we do that, then our emminent translators will still translate them into what they would LIKE the Laws to say in their language. Again, I'm preaching, but penalties belong in Rules and Regulations. Procedures belong in Laws. God save the "difference" (thought I'd say "Queen," didn't you?). Happy millenium (at the end of 2000). Stop accepting less that the best for our game in the years to come, let yourself be heard loud and strongly when the hangers-on and self-styled experts screw it up (you list them, Ive' got a list as long as your arm), and let us indeed make bridge a GAME that deserves IOC recognition and the joy that it can provide. To those who think they command the language at at higher level than I do as is evident from the forthgoing, at least I held your attention, and I'd be happy to debate you on whatever level you think is to your liking. A step forward in communication mon ami, mi amigo, mein Fruend, my friend -- that's what words are for. P/S. We can kill the universal, worldwide game without much effort, and some of us are well on the track. Please don't let them, it would give short shrift to the 30 years of my dedication to international bridge. (selfish? -- you bet!) Bud and I send our best wishes to all of you for the New Year, and we are ready to host a TRUE MILLENIUM party on 31 December 2000 for those interested. Wines from France, Cheese from The Netherlands, Beef from the USA, songs from Australia (they get right down and dirty!), and good cheer from England, Wales, Scotland, and the rest of those islands in the North Atlantic. Even Lederhosen from Bavaria! Y para los Latinos, la musica del Tango y salsa! Hasta la bye-bye. Kojak (and Bud). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 28 20:59:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 20:59:29 +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 UAA20163 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 20:59:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-192.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.192]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA12782; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:59:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002201bf5119$dae77f60$c0b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:56:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good morning Bill, Normally I use the scissor when I answer messages, but not this time. Yours is worth to be read once more. Still I have some remarks. -----Original Message----- From: Schoderb@aol.com To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl ; Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 1:39 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) >In a message dated 12/27/99 2:46:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, >t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > >> When I show spades and an unknown suit, in a withdrawn call, and show the >> spades in another way, reading law 26A there is no lead penalty at all >> anymore. That is an absurdity also. And if there are grades of absurdities, >> this one is bigger in my opinion. (I know that we can use 16 then, but it >> was never meant for that). >Absurd in your opinion, not in mine.. >Having studiously avoided getting into this thread, but amazed and chagrined >at what I read, I've got to sound off. The purpose of the Laws is to rectify >those inadvertent irregularities that occur during the playing of the game. >If you want penalties, go to the school of those who think that is what the >Laws are for. BUT!!!!! Read the Scope of the Laws. Read the Laws in >consonance with the Scope. Or, start your own game of BRITCH, with your >personal interpretation of the Laws.. My biggest fights in my NBO have to do with penalties I am unwilling to give because I like our scope. Some of the changes in the laws lately reflect that idea, and you could know that. It is not my drive for penalties but my strive for consistency that makes me copying (!) the word absurdity when one withdrawn call with unknown suits brings me to lead penalties and another can go for free. That seems a strange approach of 'adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure' as my scope says. > >Law 26: when your partner has information that he obtained legally there is >no penalty. When your partner has information that he got illegally, then >the other side needs protection against strange leads and plays. That's ALL >that Law 26 is about! >Part A1. -- NO penalty, partner got the information legally. >Part A2. -- Parter got the information illegally, and here is where you try >to establish a rectification.How do you rectify? By putting choices on those >situations where the partner of the bad guy got information he shouldn't have. >Part B. The information doesn't exist, so there's no help for the >non-offender, but we'll try to give the good guys a bit of a help, since >there is some overall information about strength, willingness to bid, etc., >that doesn't relate to a strain (you like that better than "suit?") and might >be relevant to the result. >That's what the Law is all about. > >Now, please believe me that I thoroughly enjoy the esoteric dissection of the >English language, the explanation of what English means by those to whom it >is at best a second language, along with the savants in our native tongue, >and the posing of how can we let this happen? But, to me, of greater >importance, is the communication of what the Law is trying to do within the >ENTIRE framework of the Law, and when we find the English lacking in it's >expression of that idea, maybe we should use Sanskrit, or even Dutch. >BUT, ABOVE ALL, WE SHOULD REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THE GAME IN TRYING TO GET IT >BACK TO NORMAL WHEN INADVERENT DEPARTURES OCCUR. > >You want to beat up on cheats? Get on my bandwagon! I've been after them >for years with some success, and those I haven't yet caught know who they are >and believe me, they are on schedule! >After this tirade, I agree that the Laws should be "recitifed" to clearly, In >English, indicate what they mean without having to get into the spirit of >things, but if we do that, then our emminent translators will still >translate them into what they would LIKE the Laws to say in their language. >Again, I'm preaching, but penalties belong in Rules and Regulations. >Procedures belong in Laws. God save the "difference" (thought I'd say >"Queen," didn't you?). > Happy millenium (at the end of 2000). Stop accepting less that the best for >our game in the years to come, let yourself be heard loud and strongly when >the hangers-on and self-styled experts screw it up (you list them, Ive' got a >list as long as your arm), and let us indeed make bridge a GAME that deserves >IOC recognition and the joy that it can provide. > To those who think they command the language at at higher level than I do as >is evident from the forthgoing, at least I held your attention, and I'd be >happy to debate you on whatever level you think is to your liking. A step >forward in communication mon ami, mi amigo, mein Fruend, my friend -- that's >what words are for. Dear friend, how can I not forgive you for reading me wrongly, it might even be my English again. > >P/S. We can kill the universal, worldwide game without much effort, and some >of us are well on the track. Please don't let them, it would give short >shrift to the 30 years of my dedication to international bridge. (selfish? >-- you bet!) > >Bud and I send our best wishes to all of you for the New Year, and we are >ready to host a TRUE MILLENIUM party on 31 December 2000 for those >interested. Wines from France, Cheese from The Netherlands, Beef from the >USA, songs from Australia (they get right down and dirty!), and good cheer >from England, Wales, Scotland, and the rest of those islands in the North >Atlantic. Even Lederhosen from Bavaria! Y para los Latinos, la musica del >Tango y salsa! > >Hasta la bye-bye. Kojak (and Bud). Don't forget the fireworks from Belgium. They don't use it themselves, but make the most dangerous pieces. ton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 02:03:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 02:03:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA21128 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 02:03:30 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id t.0.bcb4b4db (4401); Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:02:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.bcb4b4db.259a2b18@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:02:48 EST Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) To: ffb.dadoun@wanadoo.fr, 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 12/28/99 3:18:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, ffb.dadoun@wanadoo.fr writes: > The only thing I am not agree with you: we have more (400 ! ) and > better cheese in France than in Netherlands . > > Happy New Year, see you in Bermuda > > Claude Dadoun Yeah, but as my dear old friend Le Grande Charles Grande said, "How are you supposed to rule a country that makes that many kinds of cheeses?" Or something like that. Also, Belgian fireworks make a lot of noise, smoke, and flashing light -- but do they accomplish anything? (are you listening, Herman?) Probably ought to add some Mexican jumping beans and ceviche for the loco from Cuernavaca, and vino for the Santiago terror. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 03:30:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 03:30:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from mpcmr1001.ac.com (MPCMR1001.ac.com [170.252.160.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA21407 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 03:29:52 +1100 (EST) From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from amrhm1103.ac.com ([10.2.6.1]) by mpcmr1001.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA24325 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:29:09 -0600 (CST) Received: by amrhm1103.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 86256855.005A1675 ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:23:59 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ANDERSEN CONSULTING@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING To: "bridge-laws" Message-ID: <86256855.005A1408.00@amrhm1103.ac.com> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:23:01 +0100 Subject: Bermuda Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Out of curiosity: Which of the esteemed BLML-members will be in Bermuda - either to ruin the competition, misjudge in the appeals comittee or merely as tourists? Yours, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 03:37:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 03:37:18 +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 DAA21443 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 03:37:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-241.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.241]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA27965; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:36:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004201bf5151$72b30940$c0b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:34:37 +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 Shut up Claude, you can't do this to me. Attack me on the laws or whatever but not with our cheese. SEE YOU IN BERMUDA! And tell Jean-Claude not to forget my timer. ton -----Original Message----- From: Schoderb@aol.com To: ffb.dadoun@wanadoo.fr ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) >In a message dated 12/28/99 3:18:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, >ffb.dadoun@wanadoo.fr writes: > >> The only thing I am not agree with you: we have more (400 ! ) and >> better cheese in France than in Netherlands . >> >> Happy New Year, see you in Bermuda >> >> Claude Dadoun > >Yeah, but as my dear old friend Le Grande Charles Grande said, "How are you >supposed to rule a country that makes that many kinds of cheeses?" Or >something like that. Also, Belgian fireworks make a lot of noise, smoke, and >flashing light -- but do they accomplish anything? (are you listening, >Herman?) Probably ought to add some Mexican jumping beans and ceviche for >the loco from Cuernavaca, and vino for the Santiago terror. > > >Kojak > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 03:58:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 03:58:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from anagyris.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-1.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA21568 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 03:58:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.153) by anagyris.wanadoo.fr; 28 Dec 1999 17:58:29 +0100 Received: from lormant (164.138.107.73) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 28 Dec 1999 17:58:20 +0100 Message-ID: <3868EA7C.1B3@wanadoo.fr> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:51:08 +0100 From: LORMANT Philippe Organization: Ffb_Arb X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E [fr]-NAVIGATEU (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Schoderb@aol.com CC: ffb.dadoun@wanadoo.fr, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) References: <0.bcb4b4db.259a2b18@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 12/28/99 3:18:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, > ffb.dadoun@wanadoo.fr writes: > > > The only thing I am not agree with you: we have more (400 ! ) and > > better cheese in France than in Netherlands . > > > > Happy New Year, see you in Bermuda > > > > Claude Dadoun > > Yeah, but as my dear old friend Le Grande Charles Grande said, "How are you > supposed to rule a country that makes that many kinds of cheeses?" Or > something like that. Oh yes, but who is thinking again, we need to be ruled, in France ? Have an happy new year, with only one Law: enjoy yourself! Ph.L. Also, Belgian fireworks make a lot of noise, smoke, and > flashing light -- but do they accomplish anything? (are you listening, > Herman?) Probably ought to add some Mexican jumping beans and ceviche for > the loco from Cuernavaca, and vino for the Santiago terror. > > Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 06:33:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA22119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 06:33:03 +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 GAA22114 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 06:32:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (grabiner@localhost) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA05565 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:32:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:32:45 -0500 (EST) From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 1:17 PM +0100 12/22/99, Kooijman, A. wrote: >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: David J. Grabiner [mailto:grabiner@wcnet.org] >> Verzonden: dinsdag 21 december 1999 20:34 >> Aan: David Burn; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Onderwerp: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? >> >> >> When the rule was first created, the ACBL had a clarification >> somewhere >> between these two. If a bid relates to "either suit A or >> suit B", it does >> not relate to a specific suit unless the suit becomes clear from the >> context. >> >> Since Multi is not legal in most ACBL events, the ACBL's example was a >> Michaels cue-bid, but the situation would be similar. For example: >> >> East opens a Multi out of turn. South, who is dealer, opens >> 1NT and is >> raised to 3NT. L26B applies. >> >> East opens a Multi out of turn. South, who is dealer, opens 1S and is >> raised to 2S. South then bids 3NT, which is the final >> contract. It is >> clear from the auction that the Multi bidder could not have >> spades since >> N-S have shown eight; therefore, L26A applies with respect to hearts. > >I am not sure what David G. is describing here: the ACBL-interpretation or >his own one, but the laws do say something else, as I tried to explain in my >previous message on this subject, yesterday. A multi does not specify a >suit or suits and therefore 26A can't apply, regardless of what happens >after the withdrawn call. The law is as clear as a law can be, so I don't >understand why even here we seem to have different opinions. This was the ACBL's published intepretation when the 1987 Laws came out. The ACBL's example was with Michaels; if North opens 1S, and East bids 2S, then changes his bid (late, under L25) to 2H, he has named hearts and thus there is no lead penalty in hearts, and he has specified one of the minors. Normally, there is no lead penalty because the call specified a suit and that suit was later named. However, if N-S later show a big club fit, then East is considered to have specified diamonds, and a lead penalty may be imposed in diamonds. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 06:52:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA22202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 06:52:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA22197 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 06:52:50 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 2.0.4c1a585e (7556); Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:52:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.4c1a585e.259a6ee6@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:52:06 EST Subject: Re: Bermuda To: christian.farwig@ac.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 12/28/99 2:45:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Schoderb writes: > > In a message dated 12/28/99 11:33:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, christian. > farwig@ac.com writes: > > > Out of curiosity: Which of the esteemed BLML-members will be in Bermuda - > > > either > > to ruin the competition, misjudge in the appeals comittee or merely as > > tourists? > > > > Yours, > > > > Christian > > Are you trying to tell me that none of the BLMLers are PLAYERS? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 09:42:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:42:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22722 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:42:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 1235JS-0004sy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:41:55 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19991228234014.0127a100@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:40:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Bermuda In-Reply-To: <0.4c1a585e.259a6ee6@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:52 PM 12/28/99 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 12/28/99 2:45:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Schoderb writes: > >> >> In a message dated 12/28/99 11:33:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, christian. >> farwig@ac.com writes: >> >> > Out of curiosity: Which of the esteemed BLML-members will be in Bermuda >- >> >> > either >> > to ruin the competition, misjudge in the appeals comittee or merely as >> > tourists? >> > >> > Yours, >> > >> > Christian >> >> Are you trying to tell me that none of the BLMLers are PLAYERS? Kojak > depends on who pays the fare :) if one can find a sponsor for me i will be in regars, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 11:18:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:18:07 +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 LAA23576 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:17:57 +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 1236oE-000Csv-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 00:17:47 +0000 Message-ID: <1ecsbfCqCDa4Ew$L@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 03:38:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) In-Reply-To: <008201bf5061$50866ce0$775408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <008201bf5061$50866ce0$775408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes >Grattan Endicott'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >"Some seeds fell by the wayside" >-------------------------------------------------------- >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Burn >To: >Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 9:23 AM >Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) > > --------- \x/ --------- >> >> I really have no idea whence this "redundancy" argument sprang; it >> certainly has no basis in the wording of the Law. The words "or suits" >> are as redundant under Ton's interpretation as under mine; if they did >> not appear, it would still be possible to argue that "If the withdrawn >> call related to a specified suit" meant "If the withdrawn call related >> only to a specified suit". It would not be possible to argue this >> successfully, for the English language does not support this meaning. >> >-------- \x/ -------- >> >> Calls relating to one specified suit are to be treated under L26A; and >> Calls relating to more than one specified suit are also to be treated >> under L26A. >> >>no effect at all on the treatment >> of calls relating to a mixture of specified and unspecified suits. >> Because such calls are not explicitly treated by L26, a call must be >> examined to see whether it related to a specified suit. If so, then >> whatever else it did, it must be treated under L26A. Not to do so >> leads to this obvious absurdity: if a player shows spades and a minor >> illegally, and later shows spades legally, his partner can be >> forbidden from leading any suit including spades. Will John, or Ton, >> or David, or anyone else please explain to me why this is sensible, as >> it is a direct consequence of your interpretation of the Law? >> >+=+ If the English language is properly understood your reading of it >is incontrovertibly correct. I do not believe these eminent persons >can be misled as to the meaning of the language. I believe they want >to interpret the current language according to what they believe was >intended when the law was written. You are now in the position >that I have encountered in the past; what you say falls on wilfully >deaf ears and there is little advantage in blowing wisdom into the >wind. (It is usually Kojak who makes this point.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I indeed wish to interpret the Law as I believe it was intended, and further as handed down to me by the CTD of the EBU. I accept David's reading of the Law as written is to be preferred, but the UI aspects of the withdrawn call allow me to adjust if necessary. I think that Grattan's drafting is a move in the right direction, and I think some further anomalies can be ironed out by excluding suits from the provision of the penalty if they have been introduced later in the auction. Thus in the Muiderberg case, if the offender later bids the S, they are excluded from penalty ... and in a UNT case, if the D get specified later then they can be excluded. David has convinced us all that 26 has lousy drafting - let's try to develop from here to a more workable Law which caters for specified and unspecified suits, where later in the auction some of them become specified. ... and where the application of the Law is 'rate-card' rather than equity driven. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 13:54:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 13:54:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23847 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 13:54:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1239FT-000JJs-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 02:54:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 02:53:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: MI and split scores MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Interesting problem at the Year End Tourney in London UK. I thought it was very difficult. I turned the senior TD purple with my ruling, but DWS didn't disagree. Anyway, see what you think. I'll post the spoiler in a couple of days, there's a hint in the header. Game All T 8 6 5 4 Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P --- P P Director! 7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: A J W N E S T 6 2 2S P J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H A K J 3 End 1) I asked S what action he'd take as he put dummy down. He said 100% t/o double if alerted 2) I quietly asked N what she'd do and she quietly said "Sit for it". All this before the hand was played out. 3) North played the hand like a putz and went 3 down for -300. Called back. "I think we're damaged." by South Questions to ponder: 1) Is the 3H bid wild and haphazard? Is the 4H bid wild and haphazard? 2) Holding 5 small S what would you reckon on letting N/S play in 3H if South had made a t/o double? They play lebensohl here. 3) What proportion of players would sit for the t/o double? 4) What proportion of players would drive to 4H? You may consult anyone you like. You've got about 25 minutes till the move is called, so, without overdoing it you'd like to rule by then, although it doesn't really matter. btw I got out with no appeal. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 15:32:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 15:32:36 +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 PAA24104 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 15:32:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qtg3a.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.192.106]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA27636; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:29:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19991229044033.006e5840@mindspring.com> X-Sender: htcs@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 20:40:33 -0800 To: "John Probst" From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: MI and split scores Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:53 AM 12/29/99 +0000, you wrote: > >Interesting problem at the Year End Tourney in London UK. I thought it >was very difficult. I turned the senior TD purple with my ruling, but >DWS didn't disagree. Anyway, see what you think. I'll post the spoiler >in a couple of days, there's a hint in the header. > >Game All T 8 6 5 4 >Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S >Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P > --- P P Director! >7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a >K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak >A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back >Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: > A J W N E S > T 6 2 2S P > J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H > A K J 3 End > >1) I asked S what action he'd take as he put dummy down. He said > 100% t/o double if alerted perhaps in the uk the south hand is an automatic t/o dbl red vs red, but in the us it is far from automatic. >2) I quietly asked N what she'd do and she quietly said "Sit for it". perhaps in the uk the north hand is an appropriate penalty pass, but i'd expect almost no one in the us to sit. my guess is that most us players would overbid with 4h (overbid because the 5 spades behind the spade bidder are a problem). > All this before the hand was played out. >3) North played the hand like a putz and went 3 down for -300. > Called back. "I think we're damaged." by South > >Questions to ponder: > >1) Is the 3H bid wild and haphazard? Is the 4H bid wild and haphazard? no to 3h (hands with voids often require an aggressive call); no to 4h (3 quick tricks and honor third in hearts is more than partner can reasonably expect, even in the balancing seat). >2) Holding 5 small S what would you reckon on letting N/S play in 3H > if South had made a t/o double? They play lebensohl here. yes, if the 2nt puppet is for signoffs and the immediate 3h advance is passable. if the immediate 3h advance is forcing, then no, because the overbid is less of an overbid than the underbid would be an underbid. >3) What proportion of players would sit for the t/o double? in the us, my guess would be very very low. >4) What proportion of players would drive to 4H? in the us, my guess would be at least half. henry sun From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 20:08:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 20:08:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from mpcmr1001.ac.com (MPCMR1001.ac.com [170.252.160.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24524 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 20:08:25 +1100 (EST) From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from amrhm1103.ac.com ([10.2.6.1]) by mpcmr1001.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA04775 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 03:07:45 -0600 (CST) Received: by amrhm1103.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 86256856.0031AAD6 ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 03:02:29 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ANDERSEN CONSULTING@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING To: "bridge-laws" Message-ID: <86256856.0031A76B.00@amrhm1103.ac.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:01:19 +0100 Subject: Re: Bermuda Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> > Out of curiosity: Which of the esteemed BLML-members will be in Bermuda - > either > to ruin the competition, misjudge in the appeals comittee or merely as > tourists? > > Yours, > > Christian Are you trying to tell me that none of the BLMLers are PLAYERS? Kojak<< Those who can't - judge... (just kidding) I'll be there as a non-official support for the German ladies team - on their road for their next Venice cup. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 29 21:28:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:28:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from mpcmr1002.ac.com (MPCMR1002.ac.com [170.252.160.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA24657 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:27:58 +1100 (EST) From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from amrhm1103.ac.com ([10.2.6.1]) by mpcmr1002.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id EAA11085 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 04:27:29 -0600 (CST) Received: by amrhm1103.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 86256856.0038F691 ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 04:22:11 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ANDERSEN CONSULTING@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING To: "bridge-laws" Message-ID: <86256856.0038F24C.00@amrhm1103.ac.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:09:43 +0100 Subject: Re: MI and split scores Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> Game All T 8 6 5 4 Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P --- P P Director! 7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: A J W N E S T 6 2 2S P J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H A K J 3 End 1) I asked S what action he'd take as he put dummy down. He said 100% t/o double if alerted 2) I quietly asked N what she'd do and she quietly said "Sit for it". All this before the hand was played out. 3) North played the hand like a putz and went 3 down for -300. Called back. "I think we're damaged." by South Questions to ponder: 1) Is the 3H bid wild and haphazard? Is the 4H bid wild and haphazard?<< No, IMHO is 3H is risky, but reasonable bid >>2) Holding 5 small S what would you reckon on letting N/S play in 3H if South had made a t/o double? They play lebensohl here.<< No way - North will never stay in 3H with his hand. >> 3) What proportion of players would sit for the t/o double?<< at most 30% - with a likely void by partner and a sure heart-fit, >>4) What proportion of players would drive to 4H?<< 90% - assuming that at least 10% of all players in every tournament make absurde bids. I would let the score stand. Souths claim to have doubled with such an unsuitable hand is not reasonable in my opinion. Yours, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 00:21:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA25108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 00:21:37 +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 AAA25103 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 00:21:29 +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 IAA24546 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:21:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991229082225.006f4520@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:22:25 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: MI and split scores In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:53 AM 12/29/99 +0000, John wrote: >Game All T 8 6 5 4 >Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S >Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P > --- P P Director! >7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a >K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak >A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back >Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: > A J W N E S > T 6 2 2S P > J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H > A K J 3 End > >1) I asked S what action he'd take as he put dummy down. He said > 100% t/o double if alerted >2) I quietly asked N what she'd do and she quietly said "Sit for it". > All this before the hand was played out. >3) North played the hand like a putz and went 3 down for -300. > Called back. "I think we're damaged." by South > >Questions to ponder: > >1) Is the 3H bid wild and haphazard? No. Especially since N was placed in the unfamiliar position of knowing he had to act unilaterally for his side under the circumstances. >Is the 4H bid wild and haphazard? No. Not my choice, but not unreasonable, certainly not irrational. >2) Holding 5 small S what would you reckon on letting N/S play in 3H > if South had made a t/o double? They play lebensohl here. I find it very unlikely. >3) What proportion of players would sit for the t/o double? Quite a few. >4) What proportion of players would drive to 4H? Almost all the rest. For me the toughest question is (5) What are the likely/at all probable outcomes at 2SX? It's too early in the morning for me to tackle that one. 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 Dec 30 03:56:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 03:23:25 +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 DAA25860 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 03:23:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from ix.netcom.com (sdx-ca50-14.ix.netcom.com [199.182.42.206]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA12512; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:23:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <386A377B.2C0C5E61@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:31:55 -0800 From: "Sandy E. Barnes" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: MI and split scores References: <3.0.1.32.19991229082225.006f4520@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How do I get off this list? Sandy Barnes Eric Landau wrote: > > At 02:53 AM 12/29/99 +0000, John wrote: > > >Game All T 8 6 5 4 > >Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S > >Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P > > --- P P Director! > >7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a > >K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak > >A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back > >Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: > > A J W N E S > > T 6 2 2S P > > J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H > > A K J 3 End > > > >1) I asked S what action he'd take as he put dummy down. He said > > 100% t/o double if alerted > >2) I quietly asked N what she'd do and she quietly said "Sit for it". > > All this before the hand was played out. > >3) North played the hand like a putz and went 3 down for -300. > > Called back. "I think we're damaged." by South > > > >Questions to ponder: > > > >1) Is the 3H bid wild and haphazard? > > No. Especially since N was placed in the unfamiliar position of knowing he > had to act unilaterally for his side under the circumstances. > > >Is the 4H bid wild and haphazard? > > No. Not my choice, but not unreasonable, certainly not irrational. > > >2) Holding 5 small S what would you reckon on letting N/S play in 3H > > if South had made a t/o double? They play lebensohl here. > > I find it very unlikely. > > >3) What proportion of players would sit for the t/o double? > > Quite a few. > > >4) What proportion of players would drive to 4H? > > Almost all the rest. > > For me the toughest question is (5) What are the likely/at all probable > outcomes at 2SX? It's too early in the morning for me to tackle that one. > > 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 Dec 30 06:28:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA26519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 06:28:32 +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 GAA26514 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 06:28:23 +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 UAA28387 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 20:26:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <386A60AA.D3549B2E@eduhi.at> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 20:27:39 +0100 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [de] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI and split scores References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > Interesting problem at the Year End Tourney in London UK. I thought it > was very difficult. I turned the senior TD purple with my ruling, but > DWS didn't disagree. Anyway, see what you think. I'll post the spoiler > in a couple of days, there's a hint in the header. > > Game All T 8 6 5 4 > Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S > Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P > --- P P Director! > 7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a > K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak > A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back > Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: > A J W N E S > T 6 2 2S P > J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H > A K J 3 End > > 1) I asked S what action he'd take as he put dummy down. He said > 100% t/o double if alerted > 2) I quietly asked N what she'd do and she quietly said "Sit for it". > All this before the hand was played out. > 3) North played the hand like a putz and went 3 down for -300. > Called back. "I think we're damaged." by South > > Questions to ponder: > > 1) Is the 3H bid wild and haphazard? Is the 4H bid wild and haphazard? IMO, neither is. > 2) Holding 5 small S what would you reckon on letting N/S play in 3H > if South had made a t/o double? They play lebensohl here. improbable > 3) What proportion of players would sit for the t/o double? This depends very much on the style of a take-out double in 2nd position - a third, perhaps? > 4) What proportion of players would drive to 4H? Most of them, after a direct 3H bid. > > > You may consult anyone you like. You've got about 25 minutes till the > move is called, so, without overdoing it you'd like to rule by then, > although it doesn't really matter. btw I got out with no appeal. > > cheers john > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk One other thing is puzzling me: who called the TD? Surely not N *after* her PASS? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 07:25:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 07:25:13 +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 HAA26689 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 07:25:05 +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 PAA04796 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 15:24:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA15593 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 15:25:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 15:25:10 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199912292025.PAA15593@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Poll bridge **players**? > Really, Steve, they are not the ones who understand the effects of the > Laws! A poll is impractical for a variety of reasons, so the notion is only theoretical anyway. And for polling on normal questions, I would agree entirely with David. On the other hand, for a "top-level" question about the direction the game should take, it seems to me a poll with a carefully-worded question (or possibly multiple questions to discover underlying attitudes about the game) would be ideal if it were practical. Perhaps my viewpoint is colored by my ACBL experience, where it is far from obvious that the current administrators have been doing such a wonderful job of representing the players' interests. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 07:35:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 07:35:14 +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 HAA26729 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 07:35:07 +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 123Po6-0000bT-00; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:34:54 +0100 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA156519693; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:34:53 +0100 Subject: Re: MI and split scores To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:34:53 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at Dec 29, 1999 02:53:09 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 "John (MadDog) Probst": > > >Interesting problem at the Year End Tourney in London UK. I thought it >was very difficult. I turned the senior TD purple with my ruling, but >DWS didn't disagree. Anyway, see what you think. I'll post the spoiler >in a couple of days, there's a hint in the header. > >Game All T 8 6 5 4 >Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S >Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P > --- P P Director! >7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a >K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak >A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back >Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: > A J W N E S > T 6 2 2S P > J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H > A K J 3 End > >1) I asked S what action he'd take as he put dummy down. He said > 100% t/o double if alerted >2) I quietly asked N what she'd do and she quietly said "Sit for it". > All this before the hand was played out. >3) North played the hand like a putz and went 3 down for -300. > Called back. "I think we're damaged." by South > >Questions to ponder: > >1) Is the 3H bid wild and haphazard? Is the 4H bid wild and haphazard? No. No. Both bids are reasonable. >2) Holding 5 small S what would you reckon on letting N/S play in 3H > if South had made a t/o double? They play lebensohl here. You're kidding. About the fat chance of reaching for the wrong section of the bidding box. >3) What proportion of players would sit for the t/o double? All red? I guess those who don't drive to 4H. Some, but not many. >4) What proportion of players would drive to 4H? I would guess that about 75% play 4H, 10% play 3NT resp. 2SX, and the other 5% play some absurdity. If N/S can convince me that with a proper alert they would have played 2SX, I adjust. Otherwise score stands. E/W receive the standard PP for not alerting a weak two. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 08:51:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA27039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:51:45 +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 IAA27032 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:51:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-003.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.195]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA86815 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:50:55 GMT Message-ID: <001501bf5247$38734fa0$c3307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: MI and split score Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:53:59 -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 John (MadDOG) Probst wrote: >Interesting problem at the Year End Tourney in London UK. I thought it was very difficult. I turned the senior TD purple with my ruling, but DWS didn't disagree. Anyway, see what you think. I'll post the spoiler in a couple of days, there's a hint in the header. Game All T 8 6 5 4 Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P --- P P Director! 7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: A J W N E S T 6 2 2S P J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H A K J 3 End 1) I asked S what action he'd take as he put dummy down. He said 100% t/o double if alerted 2) I quietly asked N what she'd do and she quietly said "Sit for it". All this before the hand was played out. 3) North played the hand like a putz and went 3 down for -300. Called back. "I think we're damaged." by South Questions to ponder: 1) Is the 3H bid wild and haphazard? Is the 4H bid wild and haphazard? 2) Holding 5 small S what would you reckon on letting N/S play in 3H if South had made a t/o double? They play lebensohl here. 3) What proportion of players would sit for the t/o double? 4) What proportion of players would drive to 4H? Were N/S damaged by the MI (failure to Alert promptly)? and was this damage a direct consequence of the the failure to alert? I think N/S were damaged and that this damage was as a consequence of the failure to alert. I don't believe that the 3H or 4H bids were wild or gambling so the damage was consequent not subsequent. So I adjust as per L12C2 to something along the lines of 2SX-2(E) for both sides. Where does the split score come in? Unless.....2SX-1(E) for N/S and 2SX-3(E) for E/W....I ike it! Regards Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 10:59:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:59:06 +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 KAA27453 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:58:54 +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 123SzJ-000B9I-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:58:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:54:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: MI and split scores In-Reply-To: <386A60AA.D3549B2E@eduhi.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <386A60AA.D3549B2E@eduhi.at>, Petrus Schuster OSB writes > > >John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > >> Interesting problem at the Year End Tourney in London UK. I thought it >> was very difficult. I turned the senior TD purple with my ruling, but >> DWS didn't disagree. Anyway, see what you think. I'll post the spoiler >> in a couple of days, there's a hint in the header. >> >> Game All T 8 6 5 4 >> Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S >> Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P >> --- P P Director! >> 7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a >> K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak >> A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back >> Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: >> A J W N E S >> T 6 2 2S P >> J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H >> A K J 3 End snip > >One other thing is puzzling me: who called the TD? Surely not N *after* her >PASS? > The TD was called because there was a mistaken explanation which was corrected by East (who woke up) before the opening lead. So I applied the Law and gave North her bid back. She then chose to bid 3H, knowing her partner might have been damaged. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 10:59:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:59:07 +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 KAA27452 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:58:54 +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 123SzJ-000B9H-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:58:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:57:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: MI and split scores In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de writes >> >>Game All T 8 6 5 4 >>Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S >>Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P >> --- P P Director! >>7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a >>K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak >>A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back >>Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: >> A J W N E S >> T 6 2 2S P >> J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H >> A K J 3 End >> snip > >I would guess that about 75% play 4H, 10% play >3NT resp. 2SX, and the other 5% play some absurdity. > >If N/S can convince me that with a proper alert >they would have played 2SX, I adjust. That should give us a score for EW, now how about NS? >Otherwise >score stands. E/W receive the standard PP for >not alerting a weak two. a PP is not appropriate here in the UK, as the offenders are penalised by the application of the Law itself. cheers john > >Thomas -- 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 Dec 30 10:59:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:59:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27451 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:58:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 123SzI-000ENK-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:58:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:50:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: MI and split scores In-Reply-To: <86256856.0038F24C.00@amrhm1103.ac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <86256856.0038F24C.00@amrhm1103.ac.com>, christian.farwig@ac.com writes >>> >Game All T 8 6 5 4 >Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S >Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P > --- P P Director! >7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a >K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak >A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back >Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: > A J W N E S > T 6 2 2S P > J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H > A K J 3 End > >1) I asked S what action he'd take as he put dummy down. He said > 100% t/o double if alerted >2) I quietly asked N what she'd do and she quietly said "Sit for it". > All this before the hand was played out. >3) North played the hand like a putz and went 3 down for -300. > Called back. "I think we're damaged." by South > >Questions to ponder: > >1) Is the 3H bid wild and haphazard? Is the 4H bid wild and haphazard?<< >No, IMHO is 3H is risky, but reasonable bid > >>>2) Holding 5 small S what would you reckon on letting N/S play in 3H > if South had made a t/o double? They play lebensohl here.<< >No way - North will never stay in 3H with his hand. > >>> 3) What proportion of players would sit for the t/o double?<< >at most 30% - with a likely void by partner and a sure heart-fit, > >>>4) What proportion of players would drive to 4H?<< >90% - assuming that at least 10% of all players in every tournament make absurde >bids. > >I would let the score stand. Souths claim to have doubled with such an >unsuitable hand is not reasonable in my opinion. The t/o double is not unusual in the UK on this hand, I accepted his statement (particularly as he didn't yet know the result of the hand). Any further thoughts? > >Yours, > >Christian > > > -- 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 Dec 30 11:32:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:32:37 +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 LAA27673 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:32:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from p32s10a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.122.51] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1234ld-00051C-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 22:06:58 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: MI and split scores Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 00:36:28 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf525d$e8d9fea0$4fa793c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I assume that what has happened here is that there have been 3 passes and the opening lead is about to be faced. Presumed declarer has said "Partner should have alerted my 2S bid", and as a result John has been called. I would have read the relevant excerpts from the OB "At the start of a round, you have a duty to find out your opponents’ Basic System, their method of leads, signals and discards, and the strength of their opening 1NT. You are expected to know all the above, and if you are later embarrassed because you failed to find them out, it will be your fault." "Misinformation. 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.". You say that I have 25mins to the end of the round, so this was the 1st board of 4? I suspect that I would insist that N/S should have ascertained the basic system, John says that the CC was completed, and provided CCs had been exchanged N/S, and will now play to defend 2S. I will no doubt fine E/W for their failure to alert. You will remember that I am one of the few TDs who think CCs are for the reading of! Anne -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 3:08 AM Subject: MI and split scores > >Interesting problem at the Year End Tourney in London UK. I thought it >was very difficult. I turned the senior TD purple with my ruling, but >DWS didn't disagree. Anyway, see what you think. I'll post the spoiler >in a couple of days, there's a hint in the header. > >Game All T 8 6 5 4 >Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S >Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P > --- P P Director! >7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a >K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak >A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back >Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: > A J W N E S > T 6 2 2S P > J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H > A K J 3 End > >1) I asked S what action he'd take as he put dummy down. He said > 100% t/o double if alerted >2) I quietly asked N what she'd do and she quietly said "Sit for it". > All this before the hand was played out. >3) North played the hand like a putz and went 3 down for -300. > Called back. "I think we're damaged." by South > >Questions to ponder: > >1) Is the 3H bid wild and haphazard? Is the 4H bid wild and haphazard? >2) Holding 5 small S what would you reckon on letting N/S play in 3H > if South had made a t/o double? They play lebensohl here. >3) What proportion of players would sit for the t/o double? >4) What proportion of players would drive to 4H? > >You may consult anyone you like. You've got about 25 minutes till the >move is called, so, without overdoing it you'd like to rule by then, >although it doesn't really matter. btw I got out with no appeal. > > cheers john >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 11:39:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:39:58 +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 LAA27705 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:39:48 +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 123Tcw-000MPa-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 00:39:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 00:38:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: MI and split score In-Reply-To: <001501bf5247$38734fa0$c3307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001501bf5247$38734fa0$c3307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie>, Fearghal O'Boyle writes snip > >Game All T 8 6 5 4 >Dlr East A Q J 9 8 W N E S >Match Pts Q 5 2 2S P > --- P P Director! >7 K Q 9 3 2 No alert! (Means it's a >K 5 7 4 3 Strong 2 in the UK) cc says weak >A K T 8 3 7 So I gave North her bid back >Q T 9 5 4 8 7 6 2 New auction: > A J W N E S > T 6 2 2S P > J 9 6 4 P 3H P 4H > A K J 3 End > snip > >I think N/S were damaged and that this damage was as a consequence of the >failure to alert. I don't believe that the 3H or 4H bids were wild or >gambling so the damage was consequent not subsequent. > >So I adjust as per L12C2 to something along the lines of 2SX-2(E) for both >sides. I thought sitting 2Sx was about 10%, and so gave -2 to EW. EW -500. Most unfavourable result at all likely. I thought 800 was too tough. That's the first part of the answer, much in line with people's expectation of North sitting for the double. (10-30%) Now for N/S ?? Most likely favourable result (I don't have my FLB to hand, but the test is different). Apply the law of total tricks before you dive in too deep (or raise H too high) cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 11:48:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:48:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27747 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:47:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 123Tkj-000Bjz-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 00:47:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 00:46:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: MI and split scores In-Reply-To: <01bf525d$e8d9fea0$4fa793c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA27748 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bf525d$e8d9fea0$4fa793c3@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >I assume that what has happened here is that there have been 3 passes and >the opening lead is about to be faced. Presumed declarer has said "Partner >should have alerted my 2S bid", and as a result John has been called. >I would have read the relevant excerpts from the OB > >"At the start of a round, you have a duty to find out your opponents’ Basic >System, their method of leads, signals and discards, and the strength of >their opening 1NT. You are expected to know all the above, and if you are >later embarrassed because you failed to find them out, it will be your >fault." > > "Misinformation. > 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.". asking over an unalerted strong 2 creates *huge* UI. I'd *never* ask. > >You say that I have 25mins to the end of the round, so this was the 1st >board of 4? 4th of 8, 1st time a weak 2 was opened. I checked. 20 minutes had passed since the opponents had said what they played (including a statement regarding weak 2's). *There was a failure to alert*. >I suspect that I would insist that N/S should have ascertained >the basic system, John says that the CC was completed, and provided CCs had >been exchanged N/S, and will now play to defend 2S. I will no doubt fine E/W >for their failure to alert. You will remember that I am one of the few TDs >who think CCs are for the reading of! Looking at the cc during the auction creates UI too. It is equivalent to asking IMO. The cc is there to help the TD find out what the players' agreements are. (and can be used by declarer during the play, and the defenders to find carding methods, and before the opening lead.) Looking at it during the auction is a *bad* thing. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 12:09:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 12:09:03 +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 MAA27813 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 12:08:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.10] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 123U56-0002iR-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 01:08:44 +0000 Message-ID: <008701bf5262$82608720$0a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 01:00:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 12:44:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-003.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.195]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA26125 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 01:43:15 GMT Message-ID: <002101bf5267$aac660e0$c3307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 01:46:14 -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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: Swiss teams Dealer North N/S Vul. T T 5 3 2 A J 3 T 9 8 7 3 Q J 9 2 A 5 K 9 8 6 Q J 7 K 8 T 7 6 2 A K Q J 5 4 2 K 8 7 6 4 3 A 4 Q 9 5 4 6 West North East South - P P 2S (a) 2NT (b) 3C (c) P (d) 3D 3NT P P P Lead: AD Tricks made: 9 (a) Spades & another suit (b) West had the N-S CC in front of her. Of the 2S bid it said: Spades and another suit Up to 13 points (c) Alerted (d) Before passing East asked about the South 2S and was informed that if the second suit was Clubs the hand could be up to 13 points; if the second suit is a red suit, the hand is weak. Called after the final pass, when he ascertained why he had been called, and again at the end of the play, the Director ruled UI, deemed either Pass or Double a logical alternative for West (in place of 3NT) and adjusted the score to 3D -2 = N/S -200. West pointed out to the AC that after N had passed in first position and South had opened a weak bid it was clear there were some points shared between N & E. She had not considered any other call but 3NT at her second turn. East said he had asked the question because he did not have the N/S CC in front of him. It was noted that the CC did not carry a full explanation of the bid. East had passed 3C because he was confident the auction would continue round to him again. The Committee obtained information: if S has Clubs the 3C bid is to be passed. A double of 3D by West or East would be for penalties; East had not reached a decision whether or not to double if the 3D came round to him. Committee decisions: 1. There is UI. 2. The 3NT bid is disallowed. 3. The contract is returned to 3D. Some of the time in a smooth auction this would be doubled. 4. Score adjustment: 50% of 3D -2 50% of 3Dx -2. 5. Attention drawn to the need for N/S to amplify the detail of the 2S bid on the CC. ~ 12C3 ~ +=+ Well done TD Well done AC Well done scribe. Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 14:20:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA28222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:20:22 +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 OAA28217 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:20:14 +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 123W8C-000BXB-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 03:20:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 03:19:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue In-Reply-To: <008701bf5262$82608720$0a5408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <008701bf5262$82608720$0a5408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip > >Swiss teams Dealer North N/S Vul. > > T > T 5 3 2 > A J 3 > T 9 8 7 3 >Q J 9 2 A 5 >K 9 8 6 Q J 7 >K 8 T 7 6 2 >A K Q J 5 4 2 > K 8 7 6 4 3 > A 4 > Q 9 5 4 > 6 > > West North East South > - P P 2S (a) > 2NT (b) 3C (c) P (d) 3D > 3NT P P P > > >Committee decisions: >1. There is UI. agreed >2. The 3NT bid is disallowed. agreed >3. The contract is returned to 3D. Some of the time in a > smooth auction this would be doubled. *What*? Pard has shown a balanced 18 count and I have 8. 3N by East is fairly obvious. Score adjusted from 3N by W to 3N by E. Would they find the D lead at trick 1 or trick 3 or trick 5? If so 3N goes down. Not my problem, I wasn't the TD :)) >4. Score adjustment: 50% of 3D -2 > 50% of 3Dx -2. some percentage of 3N as well I think Did they really let 3N through when it was played by West? N/S deserve their adjustment against that IMO. (Subsequent, not consequent) >5. Attention drawn to the need for N/S to amplify the > detail of the 2S bid on the CC. garrotte is appropriate here I think. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 17:53:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA28754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:53:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA28749 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:53:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.99] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 123ZSs-0006Sa-00; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 06:53:39 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01bf5292$b1196e80$635408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 06:53:01 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 3:19 AM Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue > > >4. Score adjustment: 50% of 3D -2 > > 50% of 3Dx -2. > > some percentage of 3N as well I think > +=+ Discussed briefly. Not pursued in the light of what East said to the Committee. +=+ > > Did they really let 3N through when it was played by West? N/S deserve > their adjustment against that IMO. (Subsequent, not consequent) > +=+ Lead: Diamond Ace +=+ ~ G ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 18:44:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA28844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:44:10 +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 SAA28839 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:44:01 +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 WAA17640 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 22:45:00 -0900 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 22:44:42 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue In-Reply-To: <008701bf5262$82608720$0a5408c3@dodona> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Swiss teams Dealer North N/S Vul. > T > T 5 3 2 > A J 3 > T 9 8 7 3 > Q J 9 2 A 5 > K 9 8 6 Q J 7 > K 8 T 7 6 2 > A K Q J 5 4 2 > K 8 7 6 4 3 > A 4 > Q 9 5 4 > 6 > > West North East South > - P P 2S (a) > 2NT (b) 3C (c) P (d) 3D > 3NT P P P > > Lead: AD Tricks made: 9 > [snip] > > Committee decisions: > 1. There is UI. > 2. The 3NT bid is disallowed. Yes and yes. > 3. The contract is returned to 3D. Some of the time in a > smooth auction this would be doubled. "Some of the time"? I think it virtually inconceivable that N/S would be allowed to play any undoubled contract. Make West pass - but east's choice is solely between Double and 3NT, with double a clear favourite at this vulnerability. We can argue about whether 3NT should have been made, and what percentage of the time East will choose to bid instead of doubling. But since 3Dx-2=500, a better score than they got through use of UI, "no damage, no adjustment" looks pretty obvious to me. Yes, N/S need to be warned about more fully explaining their bids. But I have certainly heard much worse explanations. Maybe I am too used to ACBL convention cards and explanations, but I am not THAT unhappy with what N/S said. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 19:45:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA28978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 19:45:50 +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 TAA28973 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 19:45:40 +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 IAA15636 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:45:01 GMT Message-ID: <386B1B8F.8C02785A@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:45:03 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue References: <008701bf5262$82608720$0a5408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott a écrit : > > Grattan Endicott '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "Some seeds fell by the wayside" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Swiss teams Dealer North N/S Vul. > > T > T 5 3 2 > A J 3 > T 9 8 7 3 > Q J 9 2 A 5 > K 9 8 6 Q J 7 > K 8 T 7 6 2 > A K Q J 5 4 2 > K 8 7 6 4 3 > A 4 > Q 9 5 4 > 6 > > West North East South > - P P 2S (a) > 2NT (b) 3C (c) P (d) 3D > 3NT P P P > > Lead: AD Tricks made: 9 > > (a) Spades & another suit > (b) West had the N-S CC in front of her. > Of the 2S bid it said: Spades and another suit > Up to 13 points > (c) Alerted > (d) Before passing East asked about the South 2S > and was informed that if the second suit was Clubs > the hand could be up to 13 points; if the second suit > is a red suit, the hand is weak. > > Called after the final pass, when he ascertained why he had > been called, and again at the end of the play, the Director ruled > UI, deemed either Pass or Double a logical alternative for > West (in place of 3NT) and adjusted the score to 3D -2 = > N/S -200. > > West pointed out to the AC that after N had passed in first > position and South had opened a weak bid it was clear there > were some points shared between N & E. She had not > considered any other call but 3NT at her second turn. > East said he had asked the question because he did not have > the N/S CC in front of him. It was noted that the CC did not > carry a full explanation of the bid. East had passed 3C > because he was confident the auction would continue round > to him again. > > The Committee obtained information: if S has Clubs the 3C > bid is to be passed. A double of 3D by West or East would > be for penalties; East had not reached a decision whether or > not to double if the 3D came round to him. > > Committee decisions: > 1. There is UI. I think you get what you deserve when requiring players "to ask only when interested". You create UI situations where there should not be, you intimidate players who no more dare to inquire about adverse bidding and you go against full disclosure. > 2. The 3NT bid is disallowed. no problem: direct consequence of (1) > 3. The contract is returned to 3D. Some of the time in a > smooth auction this would be doubled. I can't understand how pass could be a LA for E in 4th seat, but AC was in place and did investigate . > 4. Score adjustment: 50% of 3D -2 > 50% of 3Dx -2. It's not very easy to know how many tricks would be made in 3D, but 7 is not irrealistic for NOS. > 5. Attention drawn to the need for N/S to amplify the > detail of the 2S bid on the CC. > ~ 12C3 ~ +=+ I think this observation hard. The explanation written on CC was a good digest of the 2S bid. If you want this pair to write more details about this bid, you should probably also want more details for hundreds of other of their bids for which you didn't investigate, and this would result in a very large and impractical CC, which would be worse for the benefit of their opponents. I would not be surprised to learn there was more about this case, maybe EW having antecedents of bad ethics. JP Rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 20:47:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:47:48 +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 UAA29204 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:47:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.150] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 123cB9-0008w6-00; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:47:32 +0000 Message-ID: <008a01bf52aa$fbbdc860$965608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , References: <0.e6e49fdd.2599608e@aol.com> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 07:55:34 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 12:38 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) > In a message dated 12/27/99 2:46:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, > t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > > Part B. The information doesn't exist, so there's no help for the > non-offender, but we'll try to give the good guys a bit of a help, since > there is some overall information about strength, willingness to bid, etc., > that doesn't relate to a strain (you like that better than "suit?") and might > be relevant to the result. > +=+ There are situations where a suit is unspecified but the whole table knows which one it is. +=+ > > Now, please believe me that I thoroughly enjoy the esoteric dissection of the > English language, the explanation of what English means by those to whom it > is at best a second language, along with the savants in our native tongue, > and the posing of how can we let this happen? But, to me, of greater > importance, is the communication of what the Law is trying to do within the > ENTIRE framework of the Law, and when we find the English lacking in it's > expression of that idea, maybe we should use Sanskrit, or even Dutch. > +=+ Or more precise English +=+ ~ G ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 20:47:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:47:53 +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 UAA29209 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:47:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.150] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 123cBD-0008w6-00; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:47:36 +0000 Message-ID: <008d01bf52aa$fe3a1300$965608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , References: <0.e6e49fdd.2599608e@aol.com> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:47:27 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 12:38 AM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) > > Bud and I send our best wishes to all of you for the New Year, and we are > ready to host a TRUE MILLENIUM party on 31 December 2000 for those > interested. Wines from France, Cheese from The Netherlands, Beef from the > USA, songs from Australia (they get right down and dirty!), and good cheer > from England, Wales, Scotland, and the rest of those islands in the North > Atlantic. Even Lederhosen from Bavaria! Y para los Latinos, la musica del > Tango y salsa! > +=+ Have you noticed what a sensitive word 'beef' has turned into? And I only learn now, 'cheese' also. Also, I gather, in the UK at least French Wine has lost some popularity; we are turning to Chile, Romania, South Africa, Australia, and CA. Spain and Italy have their niche. ~ G ~ +=+ p.s. 'True Millennium'? Every day is the end of a thousand years. Or on Dec 31, 2000, you can celebrate with some approximation an elapse of 1004 years and nine months since the birth of Jesus Christ. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 30 22:17:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:17:43 +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 WAA29502 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:17:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from p03s06a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.118.4] helo=vnmvhhid) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 123Fwe-0000cJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:03:04 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: MI and split scores Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:21:40 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf52b8$0b72db80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 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, December 30, 1999 1:01 AM Subject: Re: MI and split scores In article <01bf525d$e8d9fea0$4fa793c3@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >I assume that what has happened here is that there have been 3 passes and >the opening lead is about to be faced. Presumed declarer has said "Partner >should have alerted my 2S bid", and as a result John has been called. >I would have read the relevant excerpts from the OB > >"At the start of a round, you have a duty to find out your opponents’ Basic >System, their method of leads, signals and discards, and the strength of >their opening 1NT. You are expected to know all the above, and if you are >later embarrassed because you failed to find them out, it will be your >fault." > > "Misinformation. > 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.". asking over an unalerted strong 2 creates *huge* UI. I'd *never* ask. > >You say that I have 25mins to the end of the round, so this was the 1st >board of 4? 4th of 8, 1st time a weak 2 was opened. I checked. 20 minutes had passed since the opponents had said what they played (including a statement regarding weak 2's). *There was a failure to alert*. >I suspect that I would insist that N/S should have ascertained >the basic system, John says that the CC was completed, and provided CCs had >been exchanged N/S, and will now play to defend 2S. I will no doubt fine E/W >for their failure to alert. You will remember that I am one of the few TDs >who think CCs are for the reading of! Yes, there was a failure to alert. Unfortunately I think there is far too much of this cry, "We've been damaged". There is no doubt in my mind that the OB regs are for this purpose. If I am playing 8 boards against opps, and by board 4 I do not know their basic system, and have not clocked the front of their CC where "weak twos" is clearly written under basic system, I do not think I should be allowed to get two cracks at this cherry. Looking at the cc during the auction creates UI too. It is equivalent to asking IMO. The cc is there to help the TD find out what the players' agreements are. (and can be used by declarer during the play, and the defenders to find carding methods, and before the opening lead.) Looking at it during the auction is a *bad* thing. I think this is one of John's sweeping statements. CCs are there to inform. Looking at it during the auction _may_ be a bad thing, but deliberately not looking at it in case you find out that there has been a failure to alert before you have decided how to use this misdemeanour to your own best purpose is worse! As TDs in the year 2000, we should have a "God save the CC, and long may it reign" campaign. No John the purpose of a CC is not only to help the TD. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 02:27:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA00533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 02:27:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe5.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA00528 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 02:27:29 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 8517 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Dec 1999 15:26:50 -0000 Message-ID: <19991230152650.8516.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.14.105] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01bf52b8$0b72db80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: MI and split scores Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:15:15 -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: Thursday, December 30, 1999 5:21 AM Subject: Re: MI and split scores -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, December 30, 1999 1:01 AM Subject: Re: MI and split scores In article <01bf525d$e8d9fea0$4fa793c3@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes -s- >I suspect that I would insist that N/S should have ascertained >the basic system, John says that the CC was completed, and provided CCs had >been exchanged N/S, and will now play to defend 2S. I will no doubt fine E/W >for their failure to alert. You will remember that I am one of the few TDs >who think CCs are for the reading of! ?> Yes, there was a failure to alert. Unfortunately I think there is far too much of this cry, "We've been damaged". There is no doubt in my mind that the OB regs are for this purpose. If I am playing 8 boards against opps, and by board 4 I do not know their basic system, and have not clocked the front of their CC where "weak twos" is clearly written under basic system, I do not think I should be allowed to get two cracks at this cherry. end ?> [on soap box] I am of the opinion that bridge is a game of taking tricks made interesting because of a rule that limits the vocabulary available to players for the purpose of communication. I prefer it that way. Alerts, questions, and answers are outside the bounds of that vocabulary and thus are in direct conflict. And I am inclined to want to tread lightly when resolving that conflict. But the world is told that bridge is a game about disclosure. Disclosure is a mechanism that facilitates the game's progress, but to make it more important than the game is to make it the game. Maybe I am the only person who thinks it, but my experience has led me to the conclusion that this and not the former is the actual case. We are told that it is unfair to fail to alert a weak two bid. And then we are told that it is unfair to enforce the rule because all players are to be aware of the primary methods of their opponents. Whom are we players to believe? Mind you, it is the same people saying both things. [off soap box] In this case, given a second chance N has contracted for 9 tricks knowing he has a zillion losers and no inkling that partner can cover enough of them to make such an offer justified. Yes, some players venture to enter such an auction with 3H successfully, but the probability of a pointless set still looms and makes the action an anti percentage gamble. I contend that a player that bids 3H opposite a passed partner has a wild and gambling style and as such is not damaged by doing so. 3H breaks the connection between the infraction and its damage. Therefore the result stands for the NOS and the least favorable score likely for the OS is 2SX making 5 tricks. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 03:29:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA00720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 03:29:15 +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 DAA00713 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 03:29:06 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.0.3e1235f9 (4218); Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:28:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.3e1235f9.259ce221@aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:28:17 EST Subject: Re: MI and split scores To: axman22@hotmail.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 12/30/99 10:30:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, axman22@hotmail.com writes: > I am of the opinion that bridge is a game of taking tricks made interesting > because of a rule that limits the vocabulary available to players for the > purpose of communication. I prefer it that way. I agree in principle but you miss a vital point. The "vocabulary " you refer to is in a number of different languages with different meanings for the same word. It is this that "disclosure" attempts to cover. We have a choice -- restrict the 15 words to only allow one meaning for each, and you need to only know those meanings and the rest of what you object to goes away. (of course this omits the sequential use of the same words where the meaning changes) OR -- allow development of bridge beyond the "original" meanings of those words, and you are faced with a game in which different meanings for words may be in play. I don't think you'd like to play in a game where your opponents were using a language that you didn't understand. The great development of the game over the past decades makes me feel that those "original" meanings were only a beginning, and that we must allow the game to develop. > > Alerts, questions, and answers are outside the bounds of that vocabulary > and thus are in direct conflict. And I am inclined to want to tread lightly > when resolving that conflict. > > But the world is told that bridge is a game about disclosure. Disclosure is > a mechanism that facilitates the game's progress, but to make it more > important than the game is to make it the game. Maybe I am the only person > who thinks it, but my experience has led me to the conclusion that this and > not the former is the actual case. And, in fact, there are places where no deviations from a single meaning are allowed and sequential meanings (i.e.conventions) are severely restricted. Kind of fun as an occasional diet, but feels like handcuffs when it comes to getting to the right contract, building the right defense, etc. Having said that, I fully agree with you that the present hogwash of alerts, convention cards, announcements, questions, and explanations have built into the game a whole panorama of places where we can get rulings, give penalties, and make it other than a game. And, we fix things by adding Bandaids to the Bandaids. Cooler heads need to prevail, and I've seen too much over the years where players have been able to get their pet sequence, bid, call, manner of disclosing/hiding, etc., blessed and given attention to where it is no longer a game but a contest in remembering and wading through a myriad of details presented to disadvantage the opponents. Why not pick one of the methods of disclosure -- the Convention Card -- and educate our players that there is where you'll find what the opponents are doing -- NO WHERE ELSE. Redesign the CC along the lines of the WBF card (the only reason we have the ACBL card as it is is that some are of the opinion that our players have to have a place to write their scores on the same card) and enforce its use. This would give us written, concrete evidence of disclosure, nullify those leading questions that are not meant to find out anything, but are asked to hopefully get the opponents into a position where we can say "Director I wasn't alerted/informed properly...I've been damaged!" stop a great amount of UI for partner, and make the game more enjoyable. When I am asked a question and find myself responding not only with the information but selecting words that can't be used against me, in a language that is not my native tongue, I'm not enjoying the game. And finally, it is ludicrous for me to imagine that I would sit down against my opponents and not even bother to find out what their basic system is before taking my cards out of the board. Alert to 1 Club? Announce NT range? "what kind of majors are you playing - four or five card?" Needing those things spelled out to me during a live auction is like going to bat in a baseball game with a golf club. I have greater respect for brdige. Now, how's that for a soap box? ---- !!!! Cheers for 2000 to all, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 04:12:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 04:12:42 +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 EAA00900 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 04:12:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2iniunr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.122.251]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA29735 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 12:12:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <386B9433.C7D4D0CD@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:19:47 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI and split scores References: <0.3e1235f9.259ce221@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > [snip] Why not pick one of the methods of > disclosure -- the Convention Card -- and educate our players that there is > where you'll find what the opponents are doing -- NO WHERE ELSE. Redesign > the CC along the lines of the WBF card (the only reason we have the ACBL card > as it is is that some are of the opinion that our players have to have a > place to write their scores on the same card) and enforce its use. This > would give us written, concrete evidence of disclosure, nullify those leading > questions that are not meant to find out anything, but are asked to hopefully > get the opponents into a position where we can say "Director I wasn't > alerted/informed properly...I've been damaged!" stop a great amount of UI for > partner, and make the game more enjoyable. Not to me. The CC shows a weak 2-bid to be 5-10 points, and guarantee a six-card suit. It's not enough; I need to know a lot more than that sometimes. Side void? Side four card major? Two aces all right? Suit quality? Is QJT9xx Axx Kxx x a 2S bid? Or a 1S bid? Or other? What about side defense? Does that make a weak 2 more or less attractive? All of these are important. I wanna know. There's no way to eliminate questions without a much larger card than the WBF provides. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 04:27:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA00995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 04:27:32 +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 EAA00989 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 04:27:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.142.98] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 123jLt-0003RQ-00; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:27:05 +0000 Message-ID: <001501bf52eb$291e3160$628e01d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan Endicott" , References: <008701bf5262$82608720$0a5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:27:33 -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 Grattan wrote: > > Swiss teams Dealer North N/S Vul. > > T > T 5 3 2 > A J 3 > T 9 8 7 3 > Q J 9 2 A 5 > K 9 8 6 Q J 7 > K 8 T 7 6 2 > A K Q J 5 4 2 > K 8 7 6 4 3 > A 4 > Q 9 5 4 > 6 > > West North East South > - P P 2S (a) > 2NT (b) 3C (c) P (d) 3D > 3NT P P P > > Lead: AD Tricks made: 9 > > (a) Spades & another suit > (b) West had the N-S CC in front of her. > Of the 2S bid it said: Spades and another suit > Up to 13 points > (c) Alerted > (d) Before passing East asked about the South 2S > and was informed that if the second suit was Clubs > the hand could be up to 13 points; if the second suit > is a red suit, the hand is weak. > > Called after the final pass, when he ascertained why he had > been called, and again at the end of the play, the Director ruled > UI, deemed either Pass or Double a logical alternative for > West (in place of 3NT) and adjusted the score to 3D -2 = > N/S -200. That seems OK as a TD's ruling - find an infraction, determine a result favourable to the NOs, and allow an appeal to decide whether that determination falls within the constraints of the relevant Laws. > West pointed out to the AC that after N had passed in first > position and South had opened a weak bid it was clear there > were some points shared between N & E. She had not > considered any other call but 3NT at her second turn. The AC might have enquired why, if that were the case, West had not bid 3NT at her first turn. > East said he had asked the question because he did not have > the N/S CC in front of him. It was noted that the CC did not > carry a full explanation of the bid. East had passed 3C > because he was confident the auction would continue round > to him again. "Out of his own mouth..." Whence this confidence? It sounds almost as though East was playing a pass accompanied by questions as forcing. > The Committee obtained information: if S has Clubs the 3C > bid is to be passed. A double of 3D by West or East would > be for penalties; East had not reached a decision whether or > not to double if the 3D came round to him. Given his failure to double three clubs, one imagines that his "decision" to double three diamonds might have been in the negative. However, this is not really relevant - East was operating under the delusion that he would be given a chance to double three diamonds, since either South or West would bid again. This has no basis in anything apart from the forcing nature of his extraneous actions, and might profitably be discounted. > Committee decisions: > 1. There is UI. Quite. But there are certain ACs to whom it should be pointed out that the asking of questions and the examination of enemy CCs does not of itself transmit UI. In this case, however, East's motives appear to have been revealed by East himself. > 2. The 3NT bid is disallowed. Interesting. Any action by West other than pass clearly falls within the classification of a selection from among alternatives of one that could have been suggested over another by the UI. However, since in bridge terms this auction: S W N E P P 2S 2N 3C P 3D 3N is illogical, one could argue that it is not a selection "from among logical alternatives". I think we have discussed before whether a player is allowed to select an illogical action regardless of possession of UI; this may not be the place to reopen that debate. > 3. The contract is returned to 3D. Also interesting. Since East passed over 3C, there is no reason to assume that he would act over 3D, except for his own statement that his pass to 3C was forcing on somebody. That statement in itself appears to me to have no legal or logical basis. >Some of the time in a smooth auction this would be doubled. Not by West, surely? And why should an East who did not double 3C be assumed to be going to double 3D? Except... see above. > 4. Score adjustment: 50% of 3D -2 50% of 3Dx -2. This is a logical consequence of 3, but since 3 does not follow from amything, neither does this. > 5. Attention drawn to the need for N/S to amplify the > detail of the 2S bid on the CC. Harmless. But what happened to: 6. A millstone tied around the neck of West, who was drowned in the depths of the sea. If you let people cheat, they will carry on cheating. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 04:37:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 04:37:07 +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 EAA01042 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 04:37:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (har-pa5-70.ix.netcom.com [206.217.132.70]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA23607; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 12:36:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002e01bf52ec$9466fc80$4684d9ce@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 12:37:42 -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 John, while I fully agree with you that east will not sit around like a bump on a log if west passes the 3D, even if he bids 3N the contract will still be played by east because of his 2N bid, no? But there would seem to be a realistic possibility that he would double 3D. Thus there has been no damage from the UI since the 400 at the table is better than the 500 for 3D*-2. But shouldn't that 2S bid have been alerted in EBU? And wasn't there some misinformation as well? Perhaps we should have EW400 NS500 or some 12C3 blend? Of course over here there would not have been nearly so clear a case of UI, had the two suited bid been alaerted as I am sure ACBL rules would have called for. Inquiring into the meaning of an alerted call at one's first legal opportunity should not generally cause much of a UI problem. Also, why was there not a copy of the CC easily available to East? -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst Grattan Endicott > writes > >snip >> >>Swiss teams Dealer North N/S Vul. >> >> T >> T 5 3 2 >> A J 3 >> T 9 8 7 3 >>Q J 9 2 A 5 >>K 9 8 6 Q J 7 >>K 8 T 7 6 2 >>A K Q J 5 4 2 >> K 8 7 6 4 3 >> A 4 >> Q 9 5 4 >> 6 >> >> West North East South >> - P P 2S (a) >> 2NT (b) 3C (c) P (d) 3D >> 3NT P P P >> >> >>Committee decisions: >>1. There is UI. > >agreed > >>2. The 3NT bid is disallowed. > >agreed > >>3. The contract is returned to 3D. Some of the time in a >> smooth auction this would be doubled. > >*What*? Pard has shown a balanced 18 count and I have 8. 3N by East is >fairly obvious. Score adjusted from 3N by W to 3N by E. Would they find >the D lead at trick 1 or trick 3 or trick 5? If so 3N goes down. Not my >problem, I wasn't the TD :)) > >>4. Score adjustment: 50% of 3D -2 >> 50% of 3Dx -2. > >some percentage of 3N as well I think I find a pass by east most unlikely...possibly not even an LA by ACBL standards. What is he afraid of? Not diamonds...they have at best a 7 card fit. 3 Spades? That gives partner the choice of whacking it with a stack or running to 3N. At red it's hard to avoid the * with 8 points and 4 diamonds opposite a strong no. -- Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 07:06:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA01909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 07:06:18 +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 HAA01904 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 07:06:09 +1100 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id d.0.1fe456a0 (4205); Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:05:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.1fe456a0.259d14ff@aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:05:19 EST Subject: Re: MI and split scores To: jrmayne@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 12/30/99 12:14:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, jrmayne@mindspring.com writes: > Not to me. The CC shows a weak 2-bid to be 5-10 points, and guarantee a > six-card suit. It's not enough; I need to know a lot more than that > sometimes. Side void? Side four card major? Two aces all right? Suit > quality? Is QJT9xx Axx Kxx x a 2S bid? Or a 1S bid? Or other? > Sure, and you can ask when the information is inadequate to your needs. I'm not proposing the magic bullet to make our game more enjoyable, and there are certainly a lot of things that need to be considered. What I am strongly proposing is that we make the process simpler, and that we put more onus on the player who needs the information. My intent is to work toward a simpler method. Using your example, off the top of my head, the CC could require that when you have other requirements to 5-1O points, hang a star or something on it so that I'll ask if I want to know. What I am kind off stuck on is that there is a single, verifiable, written disclosure available for those who are interested. Maybe a pipe dream, but so was this computer I'm typing on not too many years ago. Cheers, Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 08:04:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:04:12 +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 IAA02115 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:04:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16404 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:03:52 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199912302103.QAA16404@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: MI and split scores To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:03:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <0.1fe456a0.259d14ff@aol.com> from "Schoderb@aol.com" at Dec 30, 99 03:05:19 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 Schoderb@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 12/30/99 12:14:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, > jrmayne@mindspring.com writes: > > > Not to me. The CC shows a weak 2-bid to be 5-10 points, and guarantee a > > six-card suit. It's not enough; I need to know a lot more than that > > sometimes. Side void? Side four card major? Two aces all right? Suit > > quality? Is QJT9xx Axx Kxx x a 2S bid? Or a 1S bid? Or other? > > > Sure, and you can ask when the information is inadequate to your needs. I'm > not proposing the magic bullet to make our game more enjoyable, and there are > certainly a lot of things that need to be considered. What I am strongly > proposing is that we make the process simpler, and that we put more onus on > the player who needs the information. My intent is to work toward a simpler > method. Using your example, off the top of my head, the CC could require > that when you have other requirements to 5-1O points, hang a star or > something on it so that I'll ask if I want to know. What I am kind off stuck > on is that there is a single, verifiable, written disclosure available for > those who are interested. Maybe a pipe dream, but so was this computer I'm > typing on not too many years ago. Step one would (in ACBL-land at any rate - other places seem to be better) involve enforcing existing CC regulations. If we could actually rely on the opposition having two identical and more or less complete CCs, perhaps we'd be in the habit of using them as an information source. I'm not just talking clubs here though this is where the problem is at its worst. And since almost everyone starts at the club level, this is where the habits are formed. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 09:44:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 09:44:59 +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 JAA02439 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 09:44:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.34] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 123oJD-0004Sg-00; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:44:39 +0000 Message-ID: <002101bf5317$8c4441e0$225608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "LORMANT Philippe" , Cc: "Claude Dadoun" , References: <0.bcb4b4db.259a2b18@aol.com> <3868EA7C.1B3@wanadoo.fr> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 19:02:25 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) > > Oh yes, but who is thinking again, we need to be ruled, in France ? > +=+ It is official then: the French are a law unto themselves. But I thought that was the British, Philippe? A successful Year 2000 to you, anyway, and may the bug not bite. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 09:44:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 09:44:59 +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 JAA02440 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 09:44:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.34] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 123oJF-0004Sg-00; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:44:41 +0000 Message-ID: <002201bf5317$8d601220$225608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "LORMANT Philippe" , Cc: "Claude Dadoun" , References: <0.bcb4b4db.259a2b18@aol.com> <3868EA7C.1B3@wanadoo.fr> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 19:05:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) > > Also, Belgian fireworks make a lot of noise, smoke, and > > flashing light -- but do they accomplish anything +=+ They are beautiful to watch and give us great entertainment. Far less of a bore than savants and pedants. :-)) ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 10:45:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:45:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02695 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:45:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.172.92.139] (helo=davidburn) by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 123pFe-0007Bb-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 23:45:02 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01bf531f$f4fee3e0$8b5cac3e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: A topical question Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 23:45:29 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How many months of the year 2000 will contain 29 days? David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 11:37:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:37:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc2.occa.home.com [24.2.8.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02906 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:37:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991231003655.TTAX8398.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:36:55 -0800 From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: A topical question Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:34:36 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000f01bf531f$f4fee3e0$8b5cac3e@davidburn> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ummm.... all of them? Linda > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 3:45 PM > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: A topical question > > > How many months of the year 2000 will contain 29 days? > > David Burn > London, England > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 11:49:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:49:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02984 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:49:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 123qFa-000MSy-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 00:49:02 +0000 Message-ID: <$Xx+JkDdW6a4EwvG@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:34:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: MI and split scores In-Reply-To: <0.3e1235f9.259ce221@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <0.3e1235f9.259ce221@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes snip > This >would give us written, concrete evidence of disclosure, nullify those leading >questions that are not meant to find out anything, but are asked to hopefully >get the opponents into a position where we can say "Director I wasn't >alerted/informed properly...I've been damaged!" stop a great amount of UI for >partner, and make the game more enjoyable. When I am asked a question and >find myself responding not only with the information but selecting words that >can't be used against me, in a language that is not my native tongue, I'm not >enjoying the game. >And finally, it is ludicrous for me to imagine that I would sit down against >my opponents and not even bother to find out what their basic system is >before taking my cards out of the board. Failure to alert a 2 bid in the UK defines the bid as having a strong meaning. I don't look at the cc when there's no alert. ... and I won't remember what the opponents said 20 minutes ago, unless we've already had a weak 2. The failure to alert is definitely MI in the uk Kojak. cheers john Alert to 1 Club? Announce NT >range? "what kind of majors are you playing - four or five card?" Needing >those things spelled out to me during a live auction is like going to bat in >a baseball game with a golf club. I have greater respect for brdige. > >Now, how's that for a soap box? ---- !!!! > >Cheers for 2000 to all, > >Kojak -- 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 Dec 31 11:49:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:49:21 +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 LAA02983 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:49:13 +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 123qFa-0003ku-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 00:49:03 +0000 Message-ID: <6nq$1iDyS6a4Ewsj@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:30:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: MI and split scores In-Reply-To: <19991230152650.8516.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <19991230152650.8516.qmail@hotmail.com>, Roger Pewick writes snip > >In this case, given a second chance N has contracted for 9 tricks knowing he >has a zillion losers and no inkling that partner can cover enough of them to >make such an offer justified. Yes, some players venture to enter such an >auction with 3H successfully, but the probability of a pointless set still >looms and makes the action an anti percentage gamble. I contend that a >player that bids 3H opposite a passed partner has a wild and gambling style >and as such is not damaged by doing so. The reason partner passed is that 2S showed a Strong 2. I'm not convinced that 3H is wild and haphazard in that context. cheers john > 3H breaks the connection between >the infraction and its damage. Therefore the result stands for the NOS and >the least favorable score likely for the OS is 2SX making 5 tricks. > > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas > > > >Anne > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 13:07:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 13:07:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from narnia.mitra.net.id (narnia.mitra.net.id [202.43.252.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03203 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 13:07:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from a (port4-4.mitra.net.id [202.43.252.131]) by narnia.mitra.net.id (8.8.7/MitraNet) with SMTP id IAA15414 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:49:25 +0700 (GMT+0700) Message-ID: <005a01bf5332$08532480$83fc2bca@a> From: "Pur Byantara" To: Subject: Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:54:51 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0057_01BF536C.B306BD80" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01BF536C.B306BD80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable unsuscribe Pur Byantara ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01BF536C.B306BD80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
unsuscribe
 
Pur=20 Byantara
------=_NextPart_000_0057_01BF536C.B306BD80-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 15:31:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 15:31:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA03709 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 15:31:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ra165897 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 14:31:00 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-108-149.tmns.net.au ([139.134.108.149]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Radiant-MailRouter V2.7 15/2069054); 31 Dec 1999 14:30:59 Message-ID: <017301bf5347$8e679640$ae5f868b@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: A topical question Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 15:28:57 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >How many months of the year 2000 will contain 29 days? Exactly 29 days? None. Every 100 years, no leap year? Or is that every 1000 years? There are two 2000 Daily Bridge Calendars for sale at my local Bridge Shop. One of them has 366 days in 2000 and the other has 365 days in 2000. Ron Klinger's 20 year old daughter died tragically and unexpectedly of a brain haemorrhage on Wednesday. The bridge community in Sydney is in mourning. Although Ron does not have time to subscribe to BLML, this year I have sent him lots of BLML postings. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 19:32:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:32:54 +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 TAA04355 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:32:45 +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 IAA28771 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:32:06 GMT Message-ID: <386C6A0C.F1133F8D@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 09:32:12 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: MI and split scores References: <6nq$1iDyS6a4Ewsj@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" a écrit : > > In article <19991230152650.8516.qmail@hotmail.com>, Roger Pewick > writes > > snip > > > >In this case, given a second chance N has contracted for 9 tricks knowing he > >has a zillion losers and no inkling that partner can cover enough of them to > >make such an offer justified. Yes, some players venture to enter such an > >auction with 3H successfully, but the probability of a pointless set still > >looms and makes the action an anti percentage gamble. I contend that a > >player that bids 3H opposite a passed partner has a wild and gambling style > >and as such is not damaged by doing so. > > The reason partner passed is that 2S showed a Strong 2. I'm not > convinced that 3H is wild and haphazard in that context. > Is not UI for N the knowing that S had MI about 2S opening? Anyway, to bid 3H only to protect against a damage caused to partner by opponent's infraction, seems unskilful; in this instance, a double shot would be more appropriate: N assumes S made accurate bidding and waits for adjustment if S was damaged by MI. JP Rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 19:57:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:57:51 +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 TAA04417 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:57:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.128.34] (helo=davidburn) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 123xsN-0005qo-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:57:35 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01bf536d$24542c20$228001d5@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <6nq$1iDyS6a4Ewsj@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: MI and split scores Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:57:32 -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 John Probst wrote: > In article <19991230152650.8516.qmail@hotmail.com>, Roger Pewick > writes > > snip > > > >In this case, given a second chance N has contracted for 9 tricks knowing he > >has a zillion losers and no inkling that partner can cover enough of them to > >make such an offer justified. Yes, some players venture to enter such an > >auction with 3H successfully, but the probability of a pointless set still > >looms and makes the action an anti percentage gamble. I contend that a > >player that bids 3H opposite a passed partner has a wild and gambling style > >and as such is not damaged by doing so. > > The reason partner passed is that 2S showed a Strong 2. I'm not > convinced that 3H is wild and haphazard in that context. > Yes, but is that a context in which one is supposed to operate? Partner is supposed to look after himself; if he has been damaged because he has been misinformed, then your side may be entitled to redress. But I do not believe that a player is entitled to base her own actions on the knowledge that partner has been misinformed; such knowledge would not, for example, be available if screens were being used. To bid 3H on 10xxxx AQJ98 Qxx void after 2S-Pass-Pass is probably unsound - partner, who is likely to be short in spades, took no action over 2S. But, other things being equal, it's not at all sufficiently bad that it would remove a connection between an infraction and damage. In the situation that arose at the table, it is likely that North would have panicked, feeling (wrongly) that it was up to her rather than the Laws to protect her side's interests. As to the question of whether NS deserve any redress at all, since they failed to protect themselves from damage arising from the non-alert of a weak two bid under EBU regulations, I have no strong views. I think it is clear that a side cannot claim damage because an unalerted 2C response to 1NT turned out to be Stayman; it is equally clear that a side could claim damage because an unalerted 2D opening turned out to be a Multi (even if this were clearly shown on the front of the CC). But a weak two bid in a major is a grey area as far as our regulations are concerned. Our directives say that "you have a duty to find out your opponents' Basic System", the capital letters indicating that this is a reference to a particular section of the convention card, but do not make it clear that two-level openings should be disclosed in that section of the card. The disturbing aspect of this case is that the TD asked North what she would have done following a putative takeout double of 2S *once the dummy had been revealed*. To nobody's surprise, once the dummy turned out to be AJ 10xx Jxxx AKJx, North said that she would have passed. This question was pointless and the answer to it irrelevant - what did the TD expect that North would say, after all? If the TD believed South's assertion that he would have doubled 2S for takeout - and, since South made this assertion at a point where he had no knowledge of his partner's hand or the outcome of the deal, it should be given credence - then the TD should have ruled in favour of the NOs to the extent of allowing North to pass the double. If East-West appealed, the AC should then have been left to determine whether or not North really would have passed the double, and would have been permitted to assign a weighted adjusted score comprising some percentage of 2S doubled, some percentage of 4H and (if they felt generous) some percentage of 3H. If the TD did not believe South's assertion, then he should have allowed the table result to stand. If what the TD did was to assign some weighted score on his own initiative, and the players were happy with it, then he has performed a noble service. However, I believe that at the moment at least, such decisions are properly the function of appeals committees - I do not say that this should always be so. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 20:52:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 20:52:07 +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 UAA04600 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 20:51:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-221.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.221]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA14733; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:51:46 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000c01bf5374$4cb4eae0$ddb4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Linda Trent" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: A topical question Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:49:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >ummm.... > >all of them? > >Linda >> How many months of the year 2000 will contain 29 days? >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> I thought we quited this subject, but if you want to support the idea that many sentences are multi interpretable, I support you. And wanting to get the answer Linda gave, makes constructrive communication impossible. Suspecting this easy one, my answer would have been: 'at least one'. Are you suggesting that with just an interpretation for L26 we can survive for some time? ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 20:53:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 20:53:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.md.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.md.home.com [24.2.2.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04618 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 20:53:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc283631-a.twsn1.md.home.com ([24.13.100.27]) by mail.rdc1.md.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19991231095308.CVGH29981.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@cc283631-a.twsn1.md.home.com> for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 01:53:08 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A topical question Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 04:53:09 -0500 Message-ID: References: <000f01bf531f$f4fee3e0$8b5cac3e@davidburn> In-Reply-To: <000f01bf531f$f4fee3e0$8b5cac3e@davidburn> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 23:45:29 -0000, David Burn wrote: >How many months of the year 2000 will contain 29 days? > If you mean at least 29 days, then all of them will. Leap years are any year which is a multiple of four, excluding those years which are both a multiple of 100 and NOT a multiple of 400. Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 21:07:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 21:07:50 +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 VAA04663 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 21:07:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-199.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.199]) by luna.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA23413; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:07:30 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002501bf5376$80001a80$ddb4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "LORMANT Philippe" , Cc: "Claude Dadoun" , Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:04:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> >> Also, Belgian fireworks make a lot of noise, smoke, and >> > flashing light -- but do they accomplish anything > >+=+ They are beautiful to watch and give us great > entertainment. Far less of a bore than savants > and pedants. :-)) ~ G ~ +=+ Try to look at it for a couple of hours. Still in admiration with just oh's and ah's? This reminds me of a nice 'oneliner' you could have used yourself. After another complain about education being too expensive (more costly than fireworks) Einstein, man of the century, replied: 'did you ever try ignorance?'. ton From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 21:41:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 21:41:55 +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 VAA04788 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 21:41:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.251] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 123zV2-000FBL-00; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:41:37 +0000 Message-ID: <001701bf537b$b5244880$fb5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <008701bf5262$82608720$0a5408c3@dodona> <001501bf52eb$291e3160$628e01d5@davidburn> Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:38:13 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 5:27 PM Subject: Re: Year End Tournament/Blackpool venue > Grattan wrote: > > > > > Swiss teams Dealer North N/S Vul. > > > > T > > T 5 3 2 > > A J 3 > > T 9 8 7 3 > > Q J 9 2 A 5 > > K 9 8 6 Q J 7 > > K 8 T 7 6 2 > > A K Q J 5 4 2 > > K 8 7 6 4 3 > > A 4 > > Q 9 5 4 > > 6 > > > > West North East South > > - P P 2S (a) > > 2NT (b) 3C (c) P (d) 3D > > 3NT P P P > > > > Lead: AD Tricks made: 9 > > > > (a) Spades & another suit > > (b) West had the N-S CC in front of her. > > Of the 2S bid it said: Spades and another suit > > Up to 13 points > > (c) Alerted > > (d) Before passing East asked about the South 2S > > and was informed that if the second suit was Clubs > > the hand could be up to 13 points; if the second suit > > is a red suit, the hand is weak. > > ------------------ \x/ ----------------- > > > Committee decisions: > > 1. There is UI. > > Quite. But there are certain ACs to whom it should be pointed out that > the asking of questions and the examination of enemy CCs does not of > itself transmit UI. In this case, however, East's motives appear to > have been revealed by East himself. > +=+ In this case I think *not* 'motives'; the effects of his action, yes. As to the general statement of principle you make, whether an action conveys UI is not dependent on the motives that inspire it; how far it depends on the way in which the partner sees it, and the extent to which this is to be taken into account, is a whole dialogue in itself - 60+ messages worth on blml. [By the way, is it my imagination or is there a general trend towards greater multiplication of contributions, responses and expansions, in the blml activity? Or is it just that I am becoming more familiar with the delete button? We are rarely crisp.] +=+ > > > 3. The contract is returned to 3D. > > Also interesting. Since East passed over 3C, there is no reason to > assume that he would act over 3D, except for his own statement that > his pass to 3C was forcing on somebody. That statement in itself > appears to me to have no legal or logical basis. > +=+ He was struggling to understand the N/S methods; the committee [M. Amos; G. Endicott (ch); Jason Hackett] knew that he was still discussing with himself whether to double when the auction returned to him. +=+ > > >Some of the time in a smooth auction this would be doubled. > > Not by West, surely? And why should an East who did not double 3C be > assumed to be going to double 3D? Except... see above. > +=+ What the committee heard from the player was germane to the decision on score adjustment. This is the difficulty with 'cold' written reporting: it would take three pages to bring out the evidence and the nuances of voice in detail. +=+ > > 4. Score adjustment: 50% of 3D -2 50% of 3Dx -2. > > > 6. A millstone tied around the neck of West, who was drowned in the > depths of the sea. > > If you let people cheat, they will carry on cheating. > +=+ East-West were adjudged to be unskilled players (not so N-S who were in the prize list). A quiet chat with West is more the order of the day. It might have occurred were less than 99% of the players already some distance down the motorway on the final evening. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 31 22:02:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 22:02:31 +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 WAA04859 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 22:02:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.157] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 123zoz-000Ffr-00; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:02:14 +0000 Message-ID: <005101bf537e$9688ddc0$fb5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "LORMANT Philippe" , Cc: "Claude Dadoun" , References: <002501bf5376$80001a80$ddb4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: Law26A2 or Law26B?(next page) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:01:29 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > > This reminds me of a nice 'oneliner' you could have used yourself. > After another complain about education being too expensive (more costly than > fireworks) Einstein, man of the century, replied: 'did you ever try > ignorance?'. > > ton > +=+ OSCAR WILDE: "I wish I had said that" McNEILL WHISTLER: "You will, Oscar, you will"+=+